Reddit Bans Subreddits about Making Fun of Fat People, Neogaf, and others.

[Zontar]

I am skeptical of an off the cuff analysis of what made the Internet successful and so important. I rather think easy communication is valuable itself.

But there was already ease of communication. In terms of making communication easier, the internet wasn't as big of a leap as people think on the micro scale, compared to things like phones at the time. It's only once one gets to the macro scale, when talking with people you've never met, like we are here, that the internet starts to have actual change. It's probably the reason why for years the bulk of websites where forums.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

reddit is a pretty open platform and free speech place, but there are a few rules:

Don't spam.

Don't ask for votes or engage in vote manipulation.

Don't post personal information.

No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors.

Don't break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of the site.

Note: 'free speech place'.

Also: to quote the place which shouldn't be named:

There's a canard that we don't understand the right to free speech - how its just a limitation placed on government action. It doesn't obligate Reddit, Kotaku, or whoever to give us space on their platform. It's not that we fail to understand this distinction - we reject it. Free speech is not just a legal right, but a moral right, and an ideal about how society should function. People should debate challenging ideas rather than hiding from them. The recent censorship on Reddit is couched in the rhetoric of "safety", echoing the campus usage of the term, where to be unsafe means to be criticized. This stands in proper Orwellian style in total contrast to being actually physically threatened.

Pretty open, not absolute.

Snrk. Moral right? Well then argue it instead of merely saying 'free speech'.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I am skeptical of an off the cuff analysis of what made the Internet successful and so important. I rather think easy communication is valuable itself.

But there was already ease of communication. In terms of making communication easier, the internet wasn't as big of a leap as people think on the micro scale, compared to things like phones at the time. It's only once one gets to the macro scale, when talking with people you've never met, like we are here, that the internet starts to have actual change. It's probably the reason why for years the bulk of websites where forums.

Well it's easier when you don't need to call a place to see information about a business for example. Information out there helps make it big, Wikipedia and Google. Websites like Amazon that let you buy stuff. News online instead of a paper limited by geography. Videos. Those make it worthwhile to use the Internet and are not things you can do by phone.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

reddit is a pretty open platform and free speech place, but there are a few rules:

Don't spam.

Don't ask for votes or engage in vote manipulation.

Don't post personal information.

No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors.

Don't break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of the site.

Note: 'free speech place'.

Also: to quote the place which shouldn't be named:

There's a canard that we don't understand the right to free speech - how its just a limitation placed on government action. It doesn't obligate Reddit, Kotaku, or whoever to give us space on their platform. It's not that we fail to understand this distinction - we reject it. Free speech is not just a legal right, but a moral right, and an ideal about how society should function. People should debate challenging ideas rather than hiding from them. The recent censorship on Reddit is couched in the rhetoric of "safety", echoing the campus usage of the term, where to be unsafe means to be criticized. This stands in proper Orwellian style in total contrast to being actually physically threatened.

Pretty open, not absolute.

Nowhere in the other rules any limitation on free speech outside 'don't dox or post CP'. These subreddits (FPH and NeoFag, in any case, don't know about the other ones, never went there) were banned for no reason which is in the rules of reddit.

Snrk. Moral right? Well then argue it instead of merely saying 'free speech'.

That's what I'm doing, right?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

reddit is a pretty open platform and free speech place, but there are a few rules:

Don't spam.

Don't ask for votes or engage in vote manipulation.

Don't post personal information.

No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors.

Don't break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of the site.

Note: 'free speech place'.

Also: to quote the place which shouldn't be named:

There's a canard that we don't understand the right to free speech - how its just a limitation placed on government action. It doesn't obligate Reddit, Kotaku, or whoever to give us space on their platform. It's not that we fail to understand this distinction - we reject it. Free speech is not just a legal right, but a moral right, and an ideal about how society should function. People should debate challenging ideas rather than hiding from them. The recent censorship on Reddit is couched in the rhetoric of "safety", echoing the campus usage of the term, where to be unsafe means to be criticized. This stands in proper Orwellian style in total contrast to being actually physically threatened.

Pretty open, not absolute.

Nowhere in the other rules any limitation on free speech outside 'don't dox or post CP'. These subreddits (FPH and NeoFag, in any case, don't know about the other ones, never went there) were banned for no reason which is in the rules of reddit.

I don't care for shifting the goal post here. I objected to someones idea about 'free speech bastions'.

Snrk. Moral right? Well then argue it instead of merely saying 'free speech'.

That's what I'm doing, right?

No, that's saying what you, presumably, think free speech is about. That is not saying why it ought to be that way. It is a clarification not an argument for why. I mean unless you're trying to count that hyperbole about hiding from arguments as am argument? It is inaccurate to say the least.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

reddit is a pretty open platform and free speech place, but there are a few rules:

Don't spam.

Don't ask for votes or engage in vote manipulation.

Don't post personal information.

No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors.

Don't break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of the site.

Note: 'free speech place'.

Also: to quote the place which shouldn't be named:

There's a canard that we don't understand the right to free speech - how its just a limitation placed on government action. It doesn't obligate Reddit, Kotaku, or whoever to give us space on their platform. It's not that we fail to understand this distinction - we reject it. Free speech is not just a legal right, but a moral right, and an ideal about how society should function. People should debate challenging ideas rather than hiding from them. The recent censorship on Reddit is couched in the rhetoric of "safety", echoing the campus usage of the term, where to be unsafe means to be criticized. This stands in proper Orwellian style in total contrast to being actually physically threatened.

Pretty open, not absolute.

Nowhere in the other rules any limitation on free speech outside 'don't dox or post CP'. These subreddits (FPH and NeoFag, in any case, don't know about the other ones, never went there) were banned for no reason which is in the rules of reddit.

I don't care for shifting the goal post here. I objected to someones idea about 'free speech bastions'.

Yeah. I see you don't care about shifting of goal posts. I gave proof that reddit was to be a place of free speech, which was what you asked.

Snrk. Moral right? Well then argue it instead of merely saying 'free speech'.

That's what I'm doing, right?

No, that's saying what you, presumably, think free speech is about. That is not saying why it ought to be that way. It is a clarification not an argument for why. I mean unless you're trying to count that hyperbole about hiding from arguments as am argument? It is inaccurate to say the least.[/quote]

That you think it's not a good one (while not rebutting it) doesn't mean I didn't give an argument.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

reddit is a pretty open platform and free speech place, but there are a few rules:

Don't spam.

Don't ask for votes or engage in vote manipulation.

Don't post personal information.

No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors.

Don't break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of the site.

Note: 'free speech place'.

Also: to quote the place which shouldn't be named:

There's a canard that we don't understand the right to free speech - how its just a limitation placed on government action. It doesn't obligate Reddit, Kotaku, or whoever to give us space on their platform. It's not that we fail to understand this distinction - we reject it. Free speech is not just a legal right, but a moral right, and an ideal about how society should function. People should debate challenging ideas rather than hiding from them. The recent censorship on Reddit is couched in the rhetoric of "safety", echoing the campus usage of the term, where to be unsafe means to be criticized. This stands in proper Orwellian style in total contrast to being actually physically threatened.

Pretty open, not absolute.

Nowhere in the other rules any limitation on free speech outside 'don't dox or post CP'. These subreddits (FPH and NeoFag, in any case, don't know about the other ones, never went there) were banned for no reason which is in the rules of reddit.

I don't care for shifting the goal post here. I objected to someones idea about 'free speech bastions'.

Yeah. I see you don't care about shifting of goal posts. I gave proof that reddit was to be a place of free speech, which was what you asked.

Pretty open, not some bastion of absolute free speech. Also noting that the CEO said it wasn't supposed to be...

Snrk. Moral right? Well then argue it instead of merely saying 'free speech'.

That's what I'm doing, right?

No, that's saying what you, presumably, think free speech is about. That is not saying why it ought to be that way. It is a clarification not an argument for why. I mean unless you're trying to count that hyperbole about hiding from arguments as am argument? It is inaccurate to say the least.

That you think it's not a good one (while not rebutting it) doesn't mean I didn't give an argument.[/quote]

So you're counting the claim that people should argue and not 'hide' as your argument? You have failed to clarify what part is supposed to be the argument. I asked and you haven't confirmed.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

reddit is a pretty open platform and free speech place, but there are a few rules:

Don't spam.

Don't ask for votes or engage in vote manipulation.

Don't post personal information.

No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors.

Don't break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of the site.

Note: 'free speech place'.

Also: to quote the place which shouldn't be named:

There's a canard that we don't understand the right to free speech - how its just a limitation placed on government action. It doesn't obligate Reddit, Kotaku, or whoever to give us space on their platform. It's not that we fail to understand this distinction - we reject it. Free speech is not just a legal right, but a moral right, and an ideal about how society should function. People should debate challenging ideas rather than hiding from them. The recent censorship on Reddit is couched in the rhetoric of "safety", echoing the campus usage of the term, where to be unsafe means to be criticized. This stands in proper Orwellian style in total contrast to being actually physically threatened.

Pretty open, not absolute.

Nowhere in the other rules any limitation on free speech outside 'don't dox or post CP'. These subreddits (FPH and NeoFag, in any case, don't know about the other ones, never went there) were banned for no reason which is in the rules of reddit.

I don't care for shifting the goal post here. I objected to someones idea about 'free speech bastions'.

Yeah. I see you don't care about shifting of goal posts. I gave proof that reddit was to be a place of free speech, which was what you asked.

Pretty open, not some bastion of absolute free speech. Also noting that the CEO said it wasn't supposed to be...

Free speech isn't a continuum.

Also: which CEO? Pao or the previous guy?

Snrk. Moral right? Well then argue it instead of merely saying 'free speech'.

That's what I'm doing, right?

No, that's saying what you, presumably, think free speech is about. That is not saying why it ought to be that way. It is a clarification not an argument for why. I mean unless you're trying to count that hyperbole about hiding from arguments as am argument? It is inaccurate to say the least.

That you think it's not a good one (while not rebutting it) doesn't mean I didn't give an argument.

So you're counting the claim that people should argue and not 'hide' as your argument? You have failed to clarify what part is supposed to be the argument. I asked and you haven't confirmed.[/quote]
I don't want to be silenced because people disagree with me. To avoid hypocrisy, I should also not silence others because I find their ideas disagreeable.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

reddit is a pretty open platform and free speech place, but there are a few rules:

Don't spam.

Don't ask for votes or engage in vote manipulation.

Don't post personal information.

No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors.

Don't break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of the site.

Note: 'free speech place'.

Also: to quote the place which shouldn't be named:

There's a canard that we don't understand the right to free speech - how its just a limitation placed on government action. It doesn't obligate Reddit, Kotaku, or whoever to give us space on their platform. It's not that we fail to understand this distinction - we reject it. Free speech is not just a legal right, but a moral right, and an ideal about how society should function. People should debate challenging ideas rather than hiding from them. The recent censorship on Reddit is couched in the rhetoric of "safety", echoing the campus usage of the term, where to be unsafe means to be criticized. This stands in proper Orwellian style in total contrast to being actually physically threatened.

Pretty open, not absolute.

Nowhere in the other rules any limitation on free speech outside 'don't dox or post CP'. These subreddits (FPH and NeoFag, in any case, don't know about the other ones, never went there) were banned for no reason which is in the rules of reddit.

I don't care for shifting the goal post here. I objected to someones idea about 'free speech bastions'.

Yeah. I see you don't care about shifting of goal posts. I gave proof that reddit was to be a place of free speech, which was what you asked.

Pretty open, not some bastion of absolute free speech. Also noting that the CEO said it wasn't supposed to be...

Free speech isn't a continuum.

Also: which CEO? Pao or the previous guy?

Sure it is.

Pao

Snrk. Moral right? Well then argue it instead of merely saying 'free speech'.

That's what I'm doing, right?

No, that's saying what you, presumably, think free speech is about. That is not saying why it ought to be that way. It is a clarification not an argument for why. I mean unless you're trying to count that hyperbole about hiding from arguments as am argument? It is inaccurate to say the least.

That you think it's not a good one (while not rebutting it) doesn't mean I didn't give an argument.

So you're counting the claim that people should argue and not 'hide' as your argument? You have failed to clarify what part is supposed to be the argument. I asked and you haven't confirmed.

I don't want to be silenced because people disagree with me. To avoid hypocrisy, I should also not silence others because I find their ideas disagreeable.

Well that was not an argument you presented to me before so I could hardly have refuted it.

And I'd say that personally I deserve to be silenced if wrong. I do not think people should want to see my ideas if they are junk. I do not think my ideas need to be out there, right or wrong. I've had stupid ideas before and I'd be more than willing to go back and say "Stfu, moron". I do not think society was any better for them. So I think little of the idea of wanting to have ones ideas out there no matter what. So similarly I don't think I need to extend the courtesy to ideas I strongly disagree with. And in this there is no hypocrisy because I do not ask that people refrain from rendering judgement on my ideas. They will judge mine and I will judge theirs. I despise the idea of keeping junk around for fear of rendering judgement.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

And I'd say that personally I deserve to be silenced if wrong.

And how would you know if you were wrong, if you aren't allowed to speak?

I do not think people should want to see my ideas if they are junk. I do not think my ideas need to be out there, right or wrong. I've had stupid ideas before and I'd be more than willing to go back and say "Stfu, moron". I do not think society was any better for them. So I think little of the idea of wanting to have ones ideas out there no matter what. So similarly I don't think I need to extend the courtesy to ideas I strongly disagree with.

What's wrong with saying 'you're wrong, and this is why'?

And in this there is no hypocrisy because I do not ask that people refrain from rendering judgement on my ideas. They will judge mine and I will judge theirs. I despise the idea of keeping junk around for fear of rendering judgement.

When did I speak of not wanting to judge?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

And I'd say that personally I deserve to be silenced if wrong.

And how would you know if you were wrong, if you aren't allowed to speak?

Well for one it does not go from absolute freedom to no talk ever. After all silencing is apparently possibly something as small as being kicked off one site.

Secondly, why would that make reasons against a position vanish too?

I do not think people should want to see my ideas if they are junk. I do not think my ideas need to be out there, right or wrong. I've had stupid ideas before and I'd be more than willing to go back and say "Stfu, moron". I do not think society was any better for them. So I think little of the idea of wanting to have ones ideas out there no matter what. So similarly I don't think I need to extend the courtesy to ideas I strongly disagree with.

What's wrong with saying 'you're wrong, and this is why'?

Quote where I said there was anything wrong with saying that.

And in this there is no hypocrisy because I do not ask that people refrain from rendering judgement on my ideas. They will judge mine and I will judge theirs. I despise the idea of keeping junk around for fear of rendering judgement.

When did I speak of not wanting to judge?

Well then you are fine with judging which ideas are worth keeping around and which are not, then subsequently tossing the trash? I got the impression you would be against judging that.

 

[SecondPrize]

If that's what they were doing then it's simple matter to post archives of it.

Only necessary if you have the belief that nobody would do this type of shit on a board like that. Since this very thing has happened to myself and to a few different friends on different boards like these, I'd be more surprised if they didn't participate in it.

No, it's only necessary if you ban a board for doing it.

 

[Somekindofgold]

Sure it is.

Pao

Mate...Pao is not the person you should be looking towards to understand what Reddit was meant to be. You should be looking at its actual creators, not the idiot brought in who spits on the ideals of the sites creators. The idiot who had nothing to do with Reddit until 2013.

Aaron Swartz is spinning so fast in his grave right now you could power half of north america with his rapidly rotating corpse.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Well, except for the subs he banned for basically the same thing, you mean.

 

[Malpraxis]

From the perspective of a physician working in a country with socialised healthcare:

Fat people deserve to be brought to light, publicly condemned, and rehabilitated. They're addicts who continue to indulge in their favourite drug. And I don't know where you are from, but here the costs of treating the complications of being fat, comes out of the taxpayers money. And heart attacks are really expensive to treat. Quadruple bypasses are too. For those who end up with diabetes, the cost of complications is enormous. Don't just think of a little insulin, but a generation of people with amputations, kidney failure and blindness.

At least smokers pay for their treatment indirectly with high taxes.

In the interest of public healthcare, being fat should be just as politically incorrect as smoking crack. Problem is, there's too many of them, and they vote, and buy things, so that change will probably come in a generation or so, when they become unsubstantially expensive to treat.

 

[Pax Romana]

Also hilarious how they banned a sub Reddit whalewatching that was about actual whales that live in the sea.

Incorrect. Just look up old archives of it. There were pictures of fat people to make fun of.

----

I think it's hilariously bad of reddit that they would ban fatpeoplehate, which had a strict anti-harassment policy and not subs like shitredditsays, which actually encourage harassment in various ways. But then they're connected to the mods that are cozy with the admins, so their harassment is alright.

That was what I had heard second hand so I'll take your word for it. As I said I never frequented Reddit. Apologies for the mistake.

 

[Silvanus]

From the perspective of a physician working in a country with socialised healthcare:

Fat people deserve to be brought to light, publicly condemned, and rehabilitated.

Is there any compelling evidence that public shame is actually particularly effective in compelling people to change behaviour?

This is quite aside from moral issues, of course.

In the interest of public healthcare, being fat should be just as politically incorrect as smoking crack. Problem is, there's too many of them, and they vote, and buy things, so that change will probably come in a generation or so, when they become unsubstantially expensive to treat.

Lots of things make people more costly to treat. Stupidity, for another. Should we make all these correlating factors sociLly unacceptable, or just the one?

I don't know why people from 'my side' always are happy to accept and correct their own mistakes. Makes it hard for me to stay neutral and in the middle of these things.

This sounds like something an actor would say in a Party Political Broadcast.