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.
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 Full