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.
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.