I looked into Reddit as an option before coming to Snapzu. I had some sections of Reddit, the front page and select subs, as part of my news feeds for years, and I finally decided to give it a try and got an account. That lasted about 2 months, and then I came to Snapzu. I have been involved in online communities before, but I'm a bit of a rare bird in that I don't have much of an online presence. No Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc. I like reading online. I like smallish, or at least more civil, communities. I only operate anonymously.
As for concerns, I don't want Snapzu to become like Reddit. Reddit has some great parts to it, don't get me wrong, but in the end I was 100% unwilling to put up with the heinous shit going on in its supposedly dark corners. People who say, "I didn't even know about r/fatpeoplehate," must not have been paying attention at all, because it was listed as one of the most popular subs on search. I could go on all day about the bullshit over there, about harassment on r/crochet etc. In my experience the shitty behavior was in no way relegated to the very overt hate subs, but permeated the entire site. Fuck. That.
The Snapzu team has given assurances that this is not a free platform for bigoted shit. I'll never really know what the founders of Reddit were thinking when they set up that site, but normalizing neo-nazi sentiment etc does not make sense to me whatsoever. It's morally reprehensible, IMHO. I feel like this about Reddit. I'm hoping that Snapzu won't make the same mistakes.
I totally agree with you that FPH was not at all hidden... I liked to recent posts on /all to get exposed to new subs, and FPH was all over that. I also agree that the hateful attitude was all over reddit, not just confined to some subs. It's definitely grown in the five years I've been on that site.
What made me join reddit five years ago was the way I was seeing complete strangers open up and respect each other. "Freedom of speech," to me, means giving everyone the space to say what they think even when you disagree. I don't care about the freedom to hate or bully others.
There are good parts of Reddit, no doubt. I did agonize over my decision to leave becasue I enjoyed much of it. People seemed quite unfazed by the negative aspects, but the fact that people were unfazed was a factor in my decision as well. I don't approve of turning a blind eye to horrible behavior. I do not expect the whole world, or the whole Internet, to be some paradise, but I do believe that online, as in the world, I have a moral imperative to not support that which I find abhorant and harmful. I saw using Reddit as an endorsement of all content therein, not just the content that I enjoyed. I know that not everyone sees it that way, but I simply did not feel right continuing to use the site knowing the type of content that was there.
I agree to a certain extent, but one of reddit's best attributes has always been having the freedom, as an average user, to speak your mind. Not that I support being an asshole on the internet. Like you said, there is some truly heinous shit on certain parts of reddit. I just believe that banning it tends to take us into an awkward grey area, in which site administrators decide which content is okay for us to see and we don't get a say. In a situation like that, the site becomes less user driven and more admin driven. That's what's been happening with reddit recently. It's no coincidence that this exodus began when the reddit admins began cracking down on subs like FPH. It's part of the larger issue of lack of transparency, commercialization, and censorship on reddit. Users don't feel that reddit is "theirs" anymore. And that disullionment all comes back to admin censorship of content. Even if said content is disgusting and immoral.
Well, to be fair, the site rules/etiquette on Snapzu state from the beginning that they don't allow racism or hate speech. So I think anyone who 'migrates' here shouldn't try to change that or push the limits of that rule.
Plus we know that it's not for advertising interests considering there are no advertisements. Even better, it seems to be consistently enforced and for the purpose of maintaining the culture of the community.
It's not that I'm especially fond of "hate speech". I'm not. I hate it. But the fact that it's not allowed implies that controversial opinions are not allowed. It sets a precedent for other types of speech to be banned. This is why it's better to err on the side of free speech.
Are you saying that you cant see any distinction between speech that is just controversial and speech that is not only controversial but also specifically designed to harass and intimidate certain groups of people off the forum?
I'll have to think about that. "Hate speech" is a pretty vague thing, and it could be abused in any number of ways. What I consider "harassing and intimidating" is likely different than what you consider "harassing and intimidating". This is why a lot of people prefer to filter the content themselves rather than having an admin do it for them. It is a tricky subject, no doubt.
Well in real world legal contexts, that problem of subjectivity is solved by 1) using the Reasonable Person standard, and 2) considerations of intent. It shouldn't be any different online.
I guess I don't understand why no hate speech necessarily sets that precedent and I definitely don't agree that "no hate speech" implies "controversial opinions not allowed". Even controversial views can be phrased in a way that isn't hateful. I think if this rule bothers newcomers then Snapzu might not be the best place for them.
It was an honest opinion. The whole reason I posted this topic was to discuss how an existing community might have concerns about an influx of redditors opposing the feel of a community. If one of the basic site rules causes significant amount of ire for new users, then there are other websites they might feel more comfortable participating in. I'm a new user - there's not much I can do to intimidate.
No worries. I just wanted to illustrate how it's easy to misinterpret people's comments. I'm just wondering how invested I want to get in a site that's not 100% free speech. No doubt there will be heated discussions on here from time to time, and I don't want to have to worry about getting kicked off just because I said something that's not PC.
Unless you're planing on setting up an overtly bigoted tribe or constantly spewing bullshit, you have nothing to worry about. I have conversations on here with people I don't agree with all the time, and I don't even downvote them for the most part. It's really not such a slippery slope as all that. The reputation score feature will likely do much of the work to censure assholes... BUT if assholes were in the majority, then reputation would work for and not against them, SO it's important to establish what kind of community we're going for here. It is possible that you would get kicked off if you're doing your best to be a dipshit, but if not, I really think your concern is unwarranted. If you don't want to get invested, that's your call. Free speech is usually balanced with other values, not framed as a 100% guarantee.
That's...a little too vague, maybe, but seems standard for most websites. I guess what matters is what is considered "hate speech". For example, I consider Rick Santorum comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality to be "hate speech", but I don't think that somebody should be banned for saying something like that.
Perhaps, but it may end up being self-regulating before the admins ever have to step in. If someone gets downvoted far more than upvoted, they may be temporarily prevented from participating. From the 9th point in the Reputation FAQ:
If your reputation drops below 50% you will be given a warning, and any further drops may result in your account being temporarily unable to post comments or snaps. Unwanted activity such as spamming and trolling is a guaranteed route to a sub-par reputation score.
I contacted the Snapzu team directly as I thought their terms were somewhat ambiguous and they were very clear that hate speech and bigotry would not be tolerated. This is not a 100% free speech site, so if that's what you're after I suggest you look elswhere.
The ambiguity was in whether this was a code of conduct that the admins hope the users will enforce, or if it's something that the admins themselves would be involved in enforcing if necessary. They stated that they were invested in keeping Snapzu free of overt hate speech, and that if the community failed to stifle hateful content they would take action. So far this hasn't been much of an issue. I only asked the admins because I anticipated an influx of Redditors that would be fleeing the site as it tries to monetize, and I was concerned that a certain subset of these users would seek to recreate the hate forums of Reddit here.
Again, consideration of intent on the part of the speaker and use of the reasonable person standard on the part of the alleged victim should lead to sufficient clarity in what ought to be banned or not.
I believe is possible for people not to have known about /r/fatpeoplehate. You see when you join, you get automatically subscribed to a few default subreddits. That beocme your "front page". Unless you click the "all" tab there's no reason for you to see any /r/fatpeoplehate posts or any other sub for that matter.
Sure, it's possible that people didn't know about FPH, but that means that they were not paying attention to the site overall, no? That's what I was saying, that they were not paying attention. I know some people just go to select subs and ignore everything else, but FPH was not low profile as some might imply.
I had been on Reddit for years (in fact, I was just 5 months away from my 10 year badge). And I didn't know specifically about /r/fph. I'd been growing sick of the default communities for several years, and unsubscribed from pretty much all of them. I rarely searched for things, I didn't look for new subreddits, I never went to /all. I was subscribed to a range of medium to smaller subreddits that met my interest. I do agree that the overall negative behavior was certainly noticeable (hence why I fled to the subreddits I did), and I was aware of some of the downvote brigading and other antics that made the site lose it's luster for me.
Yeah, being exposed to different viewpoints is one thing, but there are just too many people on reddit who are belligerently stupid and/or hateful. It got to the point where I would dread reading my inbox because about 25-30% of my replies made me want to leave the planet. There's a saying about avoiding "toxic people" in your life, and I think it applies to a lesser extent online, too. I have a quotient of annoying bullshit I'm willing to put up with, and reddit was consistently overrunning that.
The Snapzu team has given assurances that this is not a free platform for bigoted shit.
Hhmmm. I'll have to see how that works out. My philosophy is very pro-free speech. I think that you should be able to be a raving bigot, but others should be able to block you if they don't want to listen to your ravings. That way, bigots are censured by the community, not by site administration. Just like in Real Life.
I'll never really know what the founders of Reddit were thinking when they set up that site, but normalizing neo-nazi sentiment etc does not make sense to me whatsoever. It's morally reprehensible, IMHO.
Is the US government "normalizing" neo-Nazis but not censoring them? I don't think so. I think you should be able to speak freely and give your opinion, and I should be able to speak freely disagreeing with you. The problem I had wasn't with neo-Nazis so much as assholes (bigoted and otherwise).
I feel like this about Reddit.
Speaking of assholes...PZ seems to be incapable of holding civil conversations with people. I've never commented on his blog, but I've read the comments section, and ...OY. What a cesspool. I used to respect him, but his ship has sailed from me a long time ago.
Censorship by the state is a totally different issue. The state is a centralized power that has domain over all of the citizens of a country. The state can have you arrested and thrown in prison. Obviously it's important for there to be limits to that power, and disallowing censoring of speech is one of the limits we've (in the US at least) agreed to. When you have dispersed and private entities, like websites, they are free to agree to their own codes of conduct and mission statements and posting restrictions etc. I could have a site where only pictures of cats are allowed, and if you post a picture of a dog you are banned for life. This is not a restriction of anyone's freedom. You do not have a reasonable expectation of absolute free speech everywhere you go. Website admins can't arrest you like the state can. They only have the power to exclude you from conversation if they so choose. This is not something for which you can claim legal damage, because, again, you have no reasonable expectation for unfettered speech. If you value 100% free speech above all else, then, by all means, set up a site where you can say whatever you like whenever you want.
As for normalizing hate speech, let me explain. Certain speech, such as that promoting dehumanization and/or eliminationism of groups of people, is generally culturally taboo. The character of a society is determined by social norms, and social norms are often expressed and enforced through speech. It's a question of what kind of a society you would like to live in. By normalizing I mean that Reddit bills itself as being "the front page of the Internet". The forum in which speech appears matters. If the front page of the New York Times (or, hell, the back page) had a story about how some ethnic group is evil and need to be destroyed, that would be a lot more concerning than a random guy on the street handing you a handwritten pamphlet expressing the same sentiment. One way that hateful ideologies, those that call for the elimination or subjugation of others, are kept in check is through intentional marginalization of those views. If you go to a hate-group's website, you are aware that the views there are only supported by those who are participating on that site. When you go to a sub on Reddit that is espousing the same ideology, you may assume that everyone on Reddit, from r/science to r/aww, is at least okay enough with that ideology to share a space with its proponents. This has the effect of normalizing those ideologies. It's also a matter of accessibility. I'm not very likely to randomly stumble across a hate site I'm not looking for. On Reddit it was hard to ignore these groups. You could be looking at something on r/news and get caught up in it. Hell, you could have a multi and look at r/aww and r/fatpeoplehate at the same time.
I do not know how the free speech absolutists have seized control of this conversation to the degree that they have. Free speech is something to be weighed against other freedoms which are also important and valuable, such as the freedom from harassment and the chilling of speech which occurs when bigots control the conversation. Just because you value free speech doesn't mean that you have no standards and no expectation of conduct. People who complain about grey areas are not thinking critically enough, and are likely just regurgitating a slogan they heard someplace. Life is full of grey areas which humans are uniquely capable of navigating. Social ...
Censorship by the state is a totally different issue. The state is a centralized power that has domain over all of the citizens of a country. The state can have you arrested and thrown in prison. Obviously it's important for there to be limits to that power, and disallowing censoring of speech is one of the limits we've (in the US at least) agreed to. When you have dispersed and private entities, like websites, they are free to agree to their own codes of conduct and mission statements and posting restrictions etc. I could have a site where only pictures of cats are allowed, and if you post a picture of a dog you are banned for life. This is not a restriction of anyone's freedom. You do not have a reasonable expectation of absolute free speech everywhere you go. Website admins can't arrest you like the state can. They only have the power to exclude you from conversation if they so choose. This is not something for which you can claim legal damage, because, again, you have no reasonable expectation for unfettered speech. If you value 100% free speech above all else, then, by all means, set up a site where you can say whatever you like whenever you want.
As for normalizing hate speech, let me explain. Certain speech, such as that promoting dehumanization and/or eliminationism of groups of people, is generally culturally taboo. The character of a society is determined by social norms, and social norms are often expressed and enforced through speech. It's a question of what kind of a society you would like to live in. By normalizing I mean that Reddit bills itself as being "the front page of the Internet". The forum in which speech appears matters. If the front page of the New York Times (or, hell, the back page) had a story about how some ethnic group is evil and need to be destroyed, that would be a lot more concerning than a random guy on the street handing you a handwritten pamphlet expressing the same sentiment. One way that hateful ideologies, those that call for the elimination or subjugation of others, are kept in check is through intentional marginalization of those views. If you go to a hate-group's website, you are aware that the views there are only supported by those who are participating on that site. When you go to a sub on Reddit that is espousing the same ideology, you may assume that everyone on Reddit, from r/science to r/aww, is at least okay enough with that ideology to share a space with its proponents. This has the effect of normalizing those ideologies. It's also a matter of accessibility. I'm not very likely to randomly stumble across a hate site I'm not looking for. On Reddit it was hard to ignore these groups. You could be looking at something on r/news and get caught up in it. Hell, you could have a multi and look at r/aww and r/fatpeoplehate at the same time.
I do not know how the free speech absolutists have seized control of this conversation to the degree that they have. Free speech is something to be weighed against other freedoms which are also important and valuable, such as the freedom from harassment and the chilling of speech which occurs when bigots control the conversation. Just because you value free speech doesn't mean that you have no standards and no expectation of conduct. People who complain about grey areas are not thinking critically enough, and are likely just regurgitating a slogan they heard someplace. Life is full of grey areas which humans are uniquely capable of navigating. Social interactions in general are full of subtleties and compromises which we are constantly engaging with. Freedom and speech are living processes that we define and discuss and redefine together every day. Each community agrees to a starting place, like only cat pictures allowed, or no hate speech, and then they can proceed to work out the nuances of that agreement together. Is a drawing of a cat acceptable? Let's talk about it! But if you want a community that is about something else entirely, then exercise your freedom to make your own community someplace else.
There is also a huge difference between having a discussion with someone who sees you as an equal and treats you with respect even though you disagree, and having an argument with a person who sees you as being subhuman, and the entire basis of their ideology being predicated on that. I can see someone asking, "But shouldn't we be arguing with these people? Telling them they are wrong? Trying to change their minds?" Exclusion is a form of communication. Not including an ideology in discussion sends the message that that ideology is not even worthy of debate. That, in and of itself, is a stern and definitive argument against that ideology. If you owned a coffee shop and someone wanted to put a nazi poster in the window, would you put the poster up next to a well reasoned rebuttal poster, or would you just not put the poster up at all? Which makes the stronger statement? Not having a forum for hate speech sends a message that it is wrong more than entertaining the argument enough to rebut it. Now, if someone is genuinely confused about what is or isn't hate speech and comes to you in good faith asking for clarification, I can see having a discussion with that person. If someone has already made up their mind about all this (decided they are a white supremacist, for example) and they just want a free forum to recruit others to their cause, I see utterly no value in providing them with such a space, even if I occasionally stop by and tell them they are wrong.
Not sure where you draw the line for a 'far left echochamber', but I thought I'd point out that "no racism or hate speech" is written into the Snapzu site rules. I would suspect that racist stormfront comments would not be allowed here, for example.
Suppose you have somebody arguing that African-Americans are less intelligent than other races. Bigoted? Yes. Racist? Oh hell yes. Hate speech? Depends, I guess. However, I could debate with that person, present a logical counter-argument, and hopefully change their mind. In any case, I could show the flaws in the "evidence" for African-American inferiority. I learn something, other people learn something, and hopefully Ms./Mr. Racist learns something, too. Overall, it's a good thing. Now, when you pre-emptively say "Racism is not allowed", you prevent that discussion from ever occurring.
What's to say that conversation has to happen on this website though? Snapzu isn't new-reddit being administered by new people with a new look. That conversation can happen in many other places currently. I just don't see the point of coming to this website only to protest the rules that were already in place.
I looked into Reddit as an option before coming to Snapzu. I had some sections of Reddit, the front page and select subs, as part of my news feeds for years, and I finally decided to give it a try and got an account. That lasted about 2 months, and then I came to Snapzu. I have been involved in online communities before, but I'm a bit of a rare bird in that I don't have much of an online presence. No Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc. I like reading online. I like smallish, or at least more civil, communities. I only operate anonymously.
As for concerns, I don't want Snapzu to become like Reddit. Reddit has some great parts to it, don't get me wrong, but in the end I was 100% unwilling to put up with the heinous shit going on in its supposedly dark corners. People who say, "I didn't even know about r/fatpeoplehate," must not have been paying attention at all, because it was listed as one of the most popular subs on search. I could go on all day about the bullshit over there, about harassment on r/crochet etc. In my experience the shitty behavior was in no way relegated to the very overt hate subs, but permeated the entire site. Fuck. That.
The Snapzu team has given assurances that this is not a free platform for bigoted shit. I'll never really know what the founders of Reddit were thinking when they set up that site, but normalizing neo-nazi sentiment etc does not make sense to me whatsoever. It's morally reprehensible, IMHO. I feel like this about Reddit. I'm hoping that Snapzu won't make the same mistakes.
I totally agree with you that FPH was not at all hidden... I liked to recent posts on /all to get exposed to new subs, and FPH was all over that. I also agree that the hateful attitude was all over reddit, not just confined to some subs. It's definitely grown in the five years I've been on that site.
What made me join reddit five years ago was the way I was seeing complete strangers open up and respect each other. "Freedom of speech," to me, means giving everyone the space to say what they think even when you disagree. I don't care about the freedom to hate or bully others.
There are good parts of Reddit, no doubt. I did agonize over my decision to leave becasue I enjoyed much of it. People seemed quite unfazed by the negative aspects, but the fact that people were unfazed was a factor in my decision as well. I don't approve of turning a blind eye to horrible behavior. I do not expect the whole world, or the whole Internet, to be some paradise, but I do believe that online, as in the world, I have a moral imperative to not support that which I find abhorant and harmful. I saw using Reddit as an endorsement of all content therein, not just the content that I enjoyed. I know that not everyone sees it that way, but I simply did not feel right continuing to use the site knowing the type of content that was there.
what if I'm racist but level headed out discussing it?(not that I am)
Which basically lots of parts of reddit were. 'level-headed racists',indeed,they were.
I agree to a certain extent, but one of reddit's best attributes has always been having the freedom, as an average user, to speak your mind. Not that I support being an asshole on the internet. Like you said, there is some truly heinous shit on certain parts of reddit. I just believe that banning it tends to take us into an awkward grey area, in which site administrators decide which content is okay for us to see and we don't get a say. In a situation like that, the site becomes less user driven and more admin driven. That's what's been happening with reddit recently. It's no coincidence that this exodus began when the reddit admins began cracking down on subs like FPH. It's part of the larger issue of lack of transparency, commercialization, and censorship on reddit. Users don't feel that reddit is "theirs" anymore. And that disullionment all comes back to admin censorship of content. Even if said content is disgusting and immoral.
Well, to be fair, the site rules/etiquette on Snapzu state from the beginning that they don't allow racism or hate speech. So I think anyone who 'migrates' here shouldn't try to change that or push the limits of that rule.
Plus we know that it's not for advertising interests considering there are no advertisements. Even better, it seems to be consistently enforced and for the purpose of maintaining the culture of the community.
It's not that I'm especially fond of "hate speech". I'm not. I hate it. But the fact that it's not allowed implies that controversial opinions are not allowed. It sets a precedent for other types of speech to be banned. This is why it's better to err on the side of free speech.
Are you saying that you cant see any distinction between speech that is just controversial and speech that is not only controversial but also specifically designed to harass and intimidate certain groups of people off the forum?
I'll have to think about that. "Hate speech" is a pretty vague thing, and it could be abused in any number of ways. What I consider "harassing and intimidating" is likely different than what you consider "harassing and intimidating". This is why a lot of people prefer to filter the content themselves rather than having an admin do it for them. It is a tricky subject, no doubt.
Well in real world legal contexts, that problem of subjectivity is solved by 1) using the Reasonable Person standard, and 2) considerations of intent. It shouldn't be any different online.
I guess I don't understand why no hate speech necessarily sets that precedent and I definitely don't agree that "no hate speech" implies "controversial opinions not allowed". Even controversial views can be phrased in a way that isn't hateful. I think if this rule bothers newcomers then Snapzu might not be the best place for them.
I absolutely agree. However, who decides what's hateful? All it takes is for one person to get offended by something that you said.
An honest opinion? Or thinly-veiled intimidation? Do you see what I mean now?
It was an honest opinion. The whole reason I posted this topic was to discuss how an existing community might have concerns about an influx of redditors opposing the feel of a community. If one of the basic site rules causes significant amount of ire for new users, then there are other websites they might feel more comfortable participating in. I'm a new user - there's not much I can do to intimidate.
No worries. I just wanted to illustrate how it's easy to misinterpret people's comments. I'm just wondering how invested I want to get in a site that's not 100% free speech. No doubt there will be heated discussions on here from time to time, and I don't want to have to worry about getting kicked off just because I said something that's not PC.
Unless you're planing on setting up an overtly bigoted tribe or constantly spewing bullshit, you have nothing to worry about. I have conversations on here with people I don't agree with all the time, and I don't even downvote them for the most part. It's really not such a slippery slope as all that. The reputation score feature will likely do much of the work to censure assholes... BUT if assholes were in the majority, then reputation would work for and not against them, SO it's important to establish what kind of community we're going for here. It is possible that you would get kicked off if you're doing your best to be a dipshit, but if not, I really think your concern is unwarranted. If you don't want to get invested, that's your call. Free speech is usually balanced with other values, not framed as a 100% guarantee.
Where have these assurances been given? I feel uncomfortable knowing snapzu may not be 100% comitted to free speech like the others.
Possibly as reference to Rule 8 in the site rules/etiquette, found here.
That's...a little too vague, maybe, but seems standard for most websites. I guess what matters is what is considered "hate speech". For example, I consider Rick Santorum comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality to be "hate speech", but I don't think that somebody should be banned for saying something like that.
Perhaps, but it may end up being self-regulating before the admins ever have to step in. If someone gets downvoted far more than upvoted, they may be temporarily prevented from participating. From the 9th point in the Reputation FAQ:
Certain thins you can definitely draw a line at. Someone dehumanizing people for what their race or literally saying they hate x people.
I contacted the Snapzu team directly as I thought their terms were somewhat ambiguous and they were very clear that hate speech and bigotry would not be tolerated. This is not a 100% free speech site, so if that's what you're after I suggest you look elswhere.
That doesn't remove ambiguity, it just reiterates what it already says in the terms.
The ambiguity was in whether this was a code of conduct that the admins hope the users will enforce, or if it's something that the admins themselves would be involved in enforcing if necessary. They stated that they were invested in keeping Snapzu free of overt hate speech, and that if the community failed to stifle hateful content they would take action. So far this hasn't been much of an issue. I only asked the admins because I anticipated an influx of Redditors that would be fleeing the site as it tries to monetize, and I was concerned that a certain subset of these users would seek to recreate the hate forums of Reddit here.
Again, consideration of intent on the part of the speaker and use of the reasonable person standard on the part of the alleged victim should lead to sufficient clarity in what ought to be banned or not.
I believe is possible for people not to have known about /r/fatpeoplehate. You see when you join, you get automatically subscribed to a few default subreddits. That beocme your "front page". Unless you click the "all" tab there's no reason for you to see any /r/fatpeoplehate posts or any other sub for that matter.
Sure, it's possible that people didn't know about FPH, but that means that they were not paying attention to the site overall, no? That's what I was saying, that they were not paying attention. I know some people just go to select subs and ignore everything else, but FPH was not low profile as some might imply.
I was on Reddit all day everyday and never came across anything like FPH until right before all of the drama happened.
Yeah, I see what you are saying. I misread. My mistake.
I had been on Reddit for years (in fact, I was just 5 months away from my 10 year badge). And I didn't know specifically about /r/fph. I'd been growing sick of the default communities for several years, and unsubscribed from pretty much all of them. I rarely searched for things, I didn't look for new subreddits, I never went to /all. I was subscribed to a range of medium to smaller subreddits that met my interest. I do agree that the overall negative behavior was certainly noticeable (hence why I fled to the subreddits I did), and I was aware of some of the downvote brigading and other antics that made the site lose it's luster for me.
Yeah, being exposed to different viewpoints is one thing, but there are just too many people on reddit who are belligerently stupid and/or hateful. It got to the point where I would dread reading my inbox because about 25-30% of my replies made me want to leave the planet. There's a saying about avoiding "toxic people" in your life, and I think it applies to a lesser extent online, too. I have a quotient of annoying bullshit I'm willing to put up with, and reddit was consistently overrunning that.
Hhmmm. I'll have to see how that works out. My philosophy is very pro-free speech. I think that you should be able to be a raving bigot, but others should be able to block you if they don't want to listen to your ravings. That way, bigots are censured by the community, not by site administration. Just like in Real Life.
Is the US government "normalizing" neo-Nazis but not censoring them? I don't think so. I think you should be able to speak freely and give your opinion, and I should be able to speak freely disagreeing with you. The problem I had wasn't with neo-Nazis so much as assholes (bigoted and otherwise).
Speaking of assholes...PZ seems to be incapable of holding civil conversations with people. I've never commented on his blog, but I've read the comments section, and ...OY. What a cesspool. I used to respect him, but his ship has sailed from me a long time ago.
Censorship by the state is a totally different issue. The state is a centralized power that has domain over all of the citizens of a country. The state can have you arrested and thrown in prison. Obviously it's important for there to be limits to that power, and disallowing censoring of speech is one of the limits we've (in the US at least) agreed to. When you have dispersed and private entities, like websites, they are free to agree to their own codes of conduct and mission statements and posting restrictions etc. I could have a site where only pictures of cats are allowed, and if you post a picture of a dog you are banned for life. This is not a restriction of anyone's freedom. You do not have a reasonable expectation of absolute free speech everywhere you go. Website admins can't arrest you like the state can. They only have the power to exclude you from conversation if they so choose. This is not something for which you can claim legal damage, because, again, you have no reasonable expectation for unfettered speech. If you value 100% free speech above all else, then, by all means, set up a site where you can say whatever you like whenever you want.
As for normalizing hate speech, let me explain. Certain speech, such as that promoting dehumanization and/or eliminationism of groups of people, is generally culturally taboo. The character of a society is determined by social norms, and social norms are often expressed and enforced through speech. It's a question of what kind of a society you would like to live in. By normalizing I mean that Reddit bills itself as being "the front page of the Internet". The forum in which speech appears matters. If the front page of the New York Times (or, hell, the back page) had a story about how some ethnic group is evil and need to be destroyed, that would be a lot more concerning than a random guy on the street handing you a handwritten pamphlet expressing the same sentiment. One way that hateful ideologies, those that call for the elimination or subjugation of others, are kept in check is through intentional marginalization of those views. If you go to a hate-group's website, you are aware that the views there are only supported by those who are participating on that site. When you go to a sub on Reddit that is espousing the same ideology, you may assume that everyone on Reddit, from r/science to r/aww, is at least okay enough with that ideology to share a space with its proponents. This has the effect of normalizing those ideologies. It's also a matter of accessibility. I'm not very likely to randomly stumble across a hate site I'm not looking for. On Reddit it was hard to ignore these groups. You could be looking at something on r/news and get caught up in it. Hell, you could have a multi and look at r/aww and r/fatpeoplehate at the same time.
I do not know how the free speech absolutists have seized control of this conversation to the degree that they have. Free speech is something to be weighed against other freedoms which are also important and valuable, such as the freedom from harassment and the chilling of speech which occurs when bigots control the conversation. Just because you value free speech doesn't mean that you have no standards and no expectation of conduct. People who complain about grey areas are not thinking critically enough, and are likely just regurgitating a slogan they heard someplace. Life is full of grey areas which humans are uniquely capable of navigating. Social ...
... Read FullThis comment has been removed