igordennis
Member
Wow the responses to that are gold. Especially all the KIA guys.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Reddit's new CEO posts the new groundrules for the future
- Thread starter Maninthemirror
- Start date
- Status
Wow the responses to that are gold. Especially all the KIA guys.
Riposte
Member
I think Reddit likes to see itself as a collection of loosely linked communities of varying popularity and connectivity, modeling the internet itself. The demand of no tolerance of whatever offensive materials makes me wonder why people, in the same breath, don't demand the same thing of server hosts and internet providers (both of which already "censor" illegal material, from copyright to abuse), since it's pretty much asking and wanting the same thing (if not naturally the "next step" in a hate-free internet). Is it only because it is easier to demand something from a singular entity like Reddit?
My first thought lol.
/v/? Really?
Censorship, by a literal definition, can be done by both government and private organizations.
But, they have different connotations. A government censoring something has far more negative connotations than a private organization.
When people say "both of them are censorship", they're arguing the literal definition while trying to transfer the connotation so that they can argue (this case of) private censorship is equivalent in badness.
Compare libertarians who say "taxes are theft" by trying to transfer the negative meaning of "theft" over to taxes by using a literal definition that both of them involve having money "taken away" from you.
Coffee Dog
Banned
/v/ is complete fucking trash and one of the worst boards on the site. The community revolted when the moderation dared to ask the posters to post on topic during the creation of /vr/, and the board has never really recovered. It basically became a /pol/ style containment board because there isn't much moderation to ensure it becomes anything different.
/vr/ is probably the best place to discuss games on the whole internet, though. Strictly moderated with a great community, though I guess it cuts down on the shit posting tremendously when there's a hard rule against talking about new games, lol.
4chan has basically been swallowed by /pol/, and it was a similar situation with the subreddit drama really. /pol/ got made as a racism/sexism/political garbage containment board, and that sent the message that those views were condoned by the site. That community flocked to the boards, began overflowing the site, and now threads are regularly derailed by /pol/ garbage even on previously innocent boards like /ck/ and /fit/.
And, just like reddit, the only good boards are those who break from the norm and have passionate, small communities that enforce their own rules like /a/, /jp/ (though they have many different problems, they're free from /pol/ mostly), and /vr/.
There's nothing chickenshit about it. Websites are legally liable for pornographic content without something that resembles an age consent form.
stufte
Member
I'll ask you the same thing I asked someone else earlier in this thread:
I feel like some people are treating that sub like the creepy house and the end of the street that all the kids in the neighborhood have made into an urban legend about it being inhabited by ghosts and witches. And one 30 years ago supposedly a kid died when he snuck in one night.
But it's really just some old guy who is disabled and can't take care of his property.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Private individuals can act in a way that censors others. That actually is censorship. A bunch of people on the first page are claiming it is not censorship because it isn't the government that is doing it. That is factually not true.
What they are referring to is in fact censorship. There is no doubt about it.
There is a big difference when a private individual acts in a way that censors another person than when the government does it. People are correct in, at least partially, identifying this.
But at least the act of censoring has nothing to do with who is doing the act. I just wanted to point that out cause people seem to be confused about that particular issue with another one (like 1st amendment in the US prohibits certain things the US government can do regarding prohibition of speech, which by and large does not apply to private citizens).
--
As for reddit itself. Getting rid of "Anything that incites harm or violence against an individual or group of people" is kinda like the bare minimum they could do. In a way, it is a bit commendable that they stick towards their beliefs that people should be permitted a forum in which to discuss their world view, however abhorrent. Violence clearly crosses the line, as does inciting violence. These are actually spaces where governments can regulate as well (at least in the US, governments can regulate speech that incites violence and there is case law that backs this up).
So while I'd prefer to see hate groups gone entirely (I mean, who wouldn't really - except their members I guess), that doesn't mean they should just stamp out every group just because they find their worldview to be terrible.
I can't say I would decide the same if I were in charge. I think I'd hit the nuke button on those groups, but I don't necessarily think that is the right thing to do just because I would do it.
What they are referring to is in fact censorship. There is no doubt about it.
There is a big difference when a private individual acts in a way that censors another person than when the government does it. People are correct in, at least partially, identifying this.
But at least the act of censoring has nothing to do with who is doing the act. I just wanted to point that out cause people seem to be confused about that particular issue with another one (like 1st amendment in the US prohibits certain things the US government can do regarding prohibition of speech, which by and large does not apply to private citizens).
--
As for reddit itself. Getting rid of "Anything that incites harm or violence against an individual or group of people" is kinda like the bare minimum they could do. In a way, it is a bit commendable that they stick towards their beliefs that people should be permitted a forum in which to discuss their world view, however abhorrent. Violence clearly crosses the line, as does inciting violence. These are actually spaces where governments can regulate as well (at least in the US, governments can regulate speech that incites violence and there is case law that backs this up).
So while I'd prefer to see hate groups gone entirely (I mean, who wouldn't really - except their members I guess), that doesn't mean they should just stamp out every group just because they find their worldview to be terrible.
I can't say I would decide the same if I were in charge. I think I'd hit the nuke button on those groups, but I don't necessarily think that is the right thing to do just because I would do it.
And weasel their way out of saying the same for places they like by declaring that those places 'moderate'
You notice it all over. Even the FPH members called it moderation when they banned people that didn't conform to their ideas or even mention that harassing people is bad. They literally had a 'no dissent or you are banned' rule.
Yet cried censorship when reddit removed them.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Man, KIA meltdown in that thread is juicy!
igordennis
Member
Yeah nowadays its not the cesspool that it used to be (which is as low a bar can get)but that subreddit got big because of gamergate that used it as their HQ. If you know of gamergate you know why folks like that guy's comments would lump that subreddit with the others to get banned.
It's hard to take someone that puts KIA and subs dedicated to racism on the same level seriously. You don't have to like the content of either, but they're clearly in different galaxies.
So it's censorship to ban:
Posting private/confidential information
Child porn
Attempts at inciting harassment and violence
Actual harassment
The only thing that is censorship is spam and everyone understands why spam should be kept in check.
Preventing people from using language that is based on harming other people indirectly or directly isn't censorship. Censorship is about curtailing an expression of thought, not action.
Does it? To be blunt I think Apple, Google et al's power to affect censorship and all the problems that causes is actually more significant and more harmful than many states - it's more effective and more widespread.
Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
I mean yeah obviously it's not "taking away free speech", but are people actually saying this isn't censorship? What other word is there to describe it? They're allowed to censor whatever they want. If you were into one of those subreddits, fuck it, move on. I don't get why this is such a big deal for 99% of people on reddit.
Jawbreaker
Member
Regarding censorship, I think it would do a world of good if people were more honest and simply stated that they're in favor of limiting free speech. I get why people deny it's a free speech issue/censorship because you never want to say you're against free speech (it seems unsavory), but it's not inherently a bad thing when you're running an Internet community, especially one where certain "undesirables" aren't self-contained. So yes, it is absolutely an issue of free speech, but it's also okay if you're in favor of this form of censorship. If you can articulate why you're in favor of censorship on Reddit, don't be afraid to champion censorship.
It's also important to note that those in favor of minimal censorship aren't necessarily wrong, either. There can be different approaches and alternatives to simply removing/deleting/banning anything that offends groups of people. Infrastructure and content are very closely linked, so while it may be a difficult task, we can try to keep free speech as intact as possible, while still creating an infrastructure where those targeted by hate and harassment have a safe space.
One of the issues I think, and it may be a growing pain, is that there has been too much of a focus on limiting and removing speech on the Internet, instead of finding ways to accommodate speech that can be absolutely abhorrent, while also having platforms that provide the aforementioned safe spaces for women and minorities, as an example. Perhaps as the Internet progresses, we may find certain algorithms that function similar to spam filters where hate speech and the like can be filtered out in particular spaces where it's unwanted. Or perhaps there are other solutions that we've yet to explore or test.
It's also important to note that those in favor of minimal censorship aren't necessarily wrong, either. There can be different approaches and alternatives to simply removing/deleting/banning anything that offends groups of people. Infrastructure and content are very closely linked, so while it may be a difficult task, we can try to keep free speech as intact as possible, while still creating an infrastructure where those targeted by hate and harassment have a safe space.
One of the issues I think, and it may be a growing pain, is that there has been too much of a focus on limiting and removing speech on the Internet, instead of finding ways to accommodate speech that can be absolutely abhorrent, while also having platforms that provide the aforementioned safe spaces for women and minorities, as an example. Perhaps as the Internet progresses, we may find certain algorithms that function similar to spam filters where hate speech and the like can be filtered out in particular spaces where it's unwanted. Or perhaps there are other solutions that we've yet to explore or test.
So many people don't understand what reddit is.
Nobody in here is arguing that all those nasty subreddits are a good thing, it isn't about what is morally right and wrong. It is about reddit advertising themselves as a "Bastion of free speech", free of censorship and control. Now, they are enforcing control over subreddits.
You cannot have both: a platform for free speech and those rules.
Nobody in here is arguing that all those nasty subreddits are a good thing, it isn't about what is morally right and wrong. It is about reddit advertising themselves as a "Bastion of free speech", free of censorship and control. Now, they are enforcing control over subreddits.
You cannot have both: a platform for free speech and those rules.
This is honestly a great answer. Well done.
These companies don't have the power to arrest you. End of story.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
bahahahaha go figure reddit admins are a fucking joke.
The Maycomb County Country Club would like to announce the following new rules:
1) Lynchings may no longer occur, or be organised, on the premises.
2) Klan meetings may still be held, but will require advanced booking
1) Lynchings may no longer occur, or be organised, on the premises.
2) Klan meetings may still be held, but will require advanced booking
If this shit kills Reddit, then good riddance.
KIA is one of the largest gathering points for the shitholes that make up GamerGate.
GG couldn't be a more pure distillation of "Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people", with healthy heapings of "Anything that incites harm or violence against an individual or group of people" and "Publication of someones private and confidential information". Hell, it's not much of a stretch to throw in "Sexually suggestive content featuring minors" considering the relationship between GG and 8chan.
KIA absolutely deserves its place in the Pantheon of the utterly horrific.
chaobreaker
Member
Have you seen the things that have been conducted by gamergaters in the past year? These are the same people who are content in harassing, mobbing, and threatening the lives on others for voicing their opinions on games, being a woman, having feminist leanings, or speaking out against their actions. People have had their lives irrecoverably damaged because of Gamergate. Some quit their jobs or were forced to flee their homes for safety. Don't get me started on the swatting.
And all of this began because a slighted ex-boyfriend plotted with actual white supremacists to spread rumors about his ex-girlfriend having sex with game journalists so her F2P text adventure game would get good publicity.
Gamergate may not be as bad as white supremacists, but damn if they aren't trying.
Arresting me is a concern, but not a large one. States are slow and generally inefficient.
Apple censoring Fetlife affects kinksters more every day, and has the power to shape how the general public react to minorities in a very negative way.
Just like how the U.S. has free speech and no laws. Especially laws against stuff like child porn and inciting harassment and unrest.
Wait
They also said SRS was posting child pornography as a "false flag".
Like, OK.
"I'm a veteran, therefore my sexism is fine."
stufte
Member
I'm not seeing any of that in that sub... it looks like a bunch of people complaining about gawker and kotaku and other outlets and tons of threads about outlets calling them mean things. I looked for a while and couldn't find *anything* about what you are saying in your post. Have you actually ever gone into that sub? Or was it at one point a different thing? I'm confused.
RockTurtle
Member
i'm going to assume, as with anything GG related, it's an automatic assumption that it must be filled with women hating, minority bashing, doxxing planning, and overall scum and villainy.
decided to check it out and seems more clean and "focused" than the reactions here in gaf seemed to imply. my question is why kotaku though?
So I'm on a home computer now and decided to navigate the link to this r/coontown and holy fucking what the fuck is this...
Reddit has had shit like this on their website? And they're protecting it now?
There's not going to be a community rating program to identify racist subreddits. Obviously part of the point of this whole thing is that the Reddit community cannot self-police. The admins will have to identify and classify subreddits as "NSFL" or whatever. It won't be optional.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
So if they no longer get money from coontown and other shit places like it then that means that they have to now subsidize the white supremacist chucklefucks. Good job admins.
aspiegamer
Member
There were always protecting it, but now they're protecting it specifically by name!
Yupyup!
However much I utterly despise KiA and how its existence as a hate group and men's rights organization makes me nauseous, I would fight to say that their discriminatory and misogynistic bullshit doesn't rise to the same level as the "Chimpire". Most of the time. Although they sometimes single out specific people and groups for their anger, which is simply not acceptable. That they should be shut down for. I hate admitting it, but they wouldn't be on my first-tier ban list. They're one of but a few examples of good moderation actually being able to keep the place in check if done diligently. Ranting mindlessly about absurd causes isn't automatically hate speech. It's just a display of stupidity and ignorance. In no way do I condone their attitude or tone, of course, but just complaining about the faceless boogeyman that is "SJWs" isn't in and of itself hate speech.
I oppose Government intervention to limit free speech on private websites. Illegal activity should still be prosecuted, of course.
I support the need for large, privately-owned internet communities to do what they need to keep their sites safe for all. If you want to call that "limiting free speech" despite people having zero right to it on the private web in the first place, you're welcome to make that exaggeration.
LAUGHTREY
Modesty becomes a woman
I don't see it either. Maybe sorting by controversial or worst and then claiming that is the popular opinion? I don't get it.
Isn't kotaku and polygon just really shithole-y clickbait places now anyway?
There's a difference between banning/censoring people who hurt your feelings, and people who actually encourage real physical violence and harassment. If a subreddit doxes someone and posts their phone number and shit, it's not good. If a subreddit hurts your feelings because they're being mean or stupid, all censoring them is going to accomplish is make them yell it louder.
RockTurtle
Member
PERSONALLY, i would have made it so that any ad revenue from it would go to charities and groups that provide minorities with help.
and made it hella apparent. and also put ads for black people meet on it.
Q
Queen of Hunting
Unconfirmed Member
so reddit enforce rules that should be inplace since day one and people scream fall of reddit.
if your a paedophile then yea i guess u can say fall of reddit but seriously gaf wtf
if your a paedophile then yea i guess u can say fall of reddit but seriously gaf wtf
Kotaku was "implicated" in the original Zoe Quinn bullshit. That, and despite all their shitty journalism, they don't hate women.
igordennis
Member
Kotaku (gaming related stuff)isnt so i dont know what you are talking about. Polygon has a lot of instances of bad journalism and clickbait titles is not among them from what i have seen. And they have excellent features.
Jawbreaker
Member
The free speech/censorship issue isn't exclusive to governments.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Are you referring to this post? https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3djjxw/lets_talk_content_ama/ct5sh26
Because if you are, that is a really disgusting misrepresentation of what he said.
LAUGHTREY
Modesty becomes a woman
But kotaku has a bunch of shit unrelated to video games now, rumor and drama related BS that really doesn't have anything to do with games right? I honestly haven't looked at it in years, when they redesigned the site way back when.
I also remember gawker media doing the whole double standard thing with the iphone leaks of celebrities, but they hid behind free-speech with the hulk hogan sex tape. Pretty dumb company to support after that.
Chie Satonaka
Member
This would have been glorious.
Uno Venova
Banned
So these are the new rules that the recently revealed savior of reddit Ellen was protecting then from? Because it seems like nothing significant happened at all.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
I don't like the whole 'Discussing illegal activities is ok'. I feel people can still slip through the cracks on that.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
True, it should have read:
"I'm a veteran, and I have black friends and other colored friends, therefore my sexism is fine."
He did nothing to show that KIA was not what everybody says it is, and used his veteran status and colored friends as an argument for what exactly?
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Maybe read the entire thing before posting about it? And then editing to add like you're not making broad statements based on the first few lines of the post?
you also can't have real free speech when a subset of your community takes over and harasses anyone they don't like into silence.
in fact it is literally impossible to have a web forum on which some form of repression or censorship does not take place. can't be done.
in the real world people have to choose between the lesser of two evils. reddit is saying that they think the admittedly unattainable ideal of free speech is best served by enforcing some minimal set of rules. i personally think that they would be better off banning hate groups since those people are by their very nature uninterested in debate or honest discussion and always try to infect every part of sites they inhabit with their awful opinions.
in any case, you can't say they're not a platform for free speech because of these rules, because the rules are in service of free speech.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I read it, and I still don't see an argument in there other then his veteran status and colored multicultural friends.
Btw, since when is using the edit function a crime? Especially when being used to ADD to a post, and not change what was already there.
aspiegamer
Member
There is and will always be a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the incorrect opinion that freedom of speech/expression extends to private websites. It doesn't. No one is entitled to a platform to be a jackass, yet it's the end of the world if that's ever pulled away. It's one of the things that frustrates me most when I read these sorts of threads. You're free to be a bigoted jerk, but not free to demand people listen to you.
No... that's pretty accurate. Although stating you're a veteran for the sake of giving context toward telling a story is fine (and despite the entirely random nonsense about 'ethics in gaming journalism' makes a fair statement about the /r/coontown matter), adding links to pictures to "prove" you were? That's bullshit. That's deliberately trying to take advantage of a status that's a semi-protected social group for your own benefit. No one would have questioned his being a veteran. "HOW DARE YOU NOT BELIEVE IN MY PROTECTED STATUS"...? Why would he ever be defensive about it? Because he feels it validates his opinions and should make him immune from criticism.
That poster is of rather high notoriety in the Gamergate community and he is always, always, always crutching his arguments on his veteran status. Literally using it as a shield. Sorry, but that's not appropriate if one's goal is civil discourse.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Because it is clear that you are ignoring the entire post to just talk about 1 thing he happened to open with (and no editing is not a problem, I didn't say it was and just edited to add this).
He talks about free speech being something we should value, how he thinks the negatives of having too much regulation outweigh the benefits, how we should be open to hearing all dissenting opinions instead of actively choosing which dissenting opinions are allowed... I can keep going on or you could just read the post and stop focusing on one thing he said leading up to the bulk of his post.
You either didn't bother to read it or you're reducing his entire post to a few lines which is just being dishonest and is worse than the former.
he says he supports kia. honestly, given everything i've seen on that sub, this means he is either a bigot or completely delusional. or both.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I particularly liked the reply that got down-voted into oblivion.
https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3djjxw/lets_talk_content_ama/ct5sv4p
KotakuInAction SubReddit said:
Oh, but it's actually about ethics in video-game journalism huh?
Since, he is a veteran with multicultural friends that are different colors, I guess he knows better. Being an avid supporter of that cesspool.
- Status