But it’s not just jailing or killing. Those are important forms of power, to be sure, but in modern times they are not the only ones. They may not even be the most influential forms of power.
That’s why the government is prohibited from doing almost anything that could censor speech - if the government tried to charge me $20 for expressing a particular political opinion, that would be completely rejected, both by the courts and by society.
But if a private institution used a similar economic incentive to influence my expression, nobody would blink. This is just weirdly inconsistent, and I don’t think we should be satisfied with that as a framework for who has the rights to what kinds of censorship.
Nobody is in here saying Reddit doesn’t have the right, or even that it was a bad thing. But framing it entirely in a “They have the right to, therefor it’s good” argument doesn’t really do anyone much good. Instead of focusing on why they have the right to do this, focus on why it’s a good thing for them to do it.
If Reddit suddenly decided to ban all LGBT related subreddits tomorrow, none of the discussion should focus on if they had the right to or not, just that it was shitty of them to.
To add onto that, it’s also important to discuss how a lot of websites have the “right” to moderate comments in the way they do, but it’s still abhorrent and we should judge them on it.
Up until just now, reddit allowed this - and still allows all sorts of awful stuff. They have a right to, but it’s awful that they do.
Tumblr will delete posts talking about how someone was sent a private message full of rape threats, but still allow people who openly identify as Nazis to make rape threats towards underage girls. They have the right to do that, but it’s abhorrent that they do.
The “right” to do any of this really doesn’t mean jack, we should focus on what they should do, and not get bogged down in the same repeating “They have the right, they have the right” over and over every time this stuff occurs. Nobody is going to be arguing otherwise here, because pretty much the only people who think reddit doesn’t have the right are types like the hardcore GG sorts who think that attempting to murder people is legally protected, and thus won’t be sticking on here long enough to argue.
What Reddit shut down was the posting of personal information. You can post pictures of dead kids all you want, but if you include personal information, you will get banned. It’s pretty consistent with their posted terms of use.
Reddit’s ALWAYS been on the “we’ll let you slide until you break an ACTUAL rule”, and this is a perfect example of it. See also, “well, creepshots aren’t ILLEGAL, so…” being their law of the land for quite some time.
The “right” to do any of this really doesn’t mean jack, we should focus on what they should do
So, what should they do? Any action they do should be guided by their posted terms of use document, so I guess I’m asking what rule(s) would you add to their current set of 4?
I think the real question is, does a corporation have the right to ban someone from their business premises. Zikzak made a good point earlier about a business not being like a home.
To add to this complicated set of… thingies… some have made the argument (Rand Paul, most recently, but going back to ardent segregationists) that private businesses had the right to ban racial minorities, because it’s a private business. But the Supremes said they did not. So, in that case, @zikzak is correct in that there are legally important differences. that being said, there is something deeply icky to me about comparing people who seem to get off on inflicting pain on others with ending Jim Crow. This has become a larger argument among racists and those looking to find a way around legal mandates to integrate - the private property and free speech rights trumping other legal configurations.
But I also feel like this regarding banning these subreddits…
They should get rid of subreddits, and also USERS, who harass and attack others, and promote hatred. Things like KiA, TiA, etc, as well as subreddits that post images of women without permission, including things like upskirts, for sexual gratification of creeps, just need to be eliminated outright. And the users banned. There’s no reason to allow that sort of harassment and hatred to exist.
It’s a majority of people who comment/post daily, perhaps. But a minority of irregulars and the readership at large.
This is part of the fundamental problem of internet commenting. The nature of it, the way the technical structure of it has an inadvertent psychological attraction and resonance with certain types of communicator.
[quote=“Chesterfield, post:28, topic:59538”]
I think the real question is, does a corporation have the right to ban someone from their business premises.
[/quote] You might want to ask the many local drinking establishments who have 86’d me for getting smashed and then throwing pitchers of beer and starting fights.
Of COURSE businesses have the right to ban people from their premises for misbehavior. Try going into a fancy restaurant and flip some tables over and punch the waiter and see what happens.
Do you not think businesses should be able to ban patrons who are disruptive?
The structure of reddit would suggest that there is agreement from the readers as well. Even non-posters are able to vote down the unpopular opinions, yet they continue rise to the top. I hope that I am wrong of course, and would love some evidence of it.
And this. They are being disruptive to the community and being shown the door for it.
There will be places where that behavior is welcome but reddit has come to realize that if it is to survive they can’t tolerate that behavior anymore, so thanks for playing have a good day and home version of the reddit server code.
Hah, guys, hey look, we’re grouping people together based on their physical appearance!
We’re talking about subreddits getting banned for shaming fat people, so let’s use a moniker that describes facial hair grown by fat people to hide their double chin!
This shows that we’re nothing like them!
EDIT: As an example, at one point one of the most common images on Reddit’s “Just Neckbeard Things” was of Shane Koyczan.
Shane’s a poet and author from Canada; one of the thing’s he’s best known for an anti-bullying spoken word poem at the TED conference.
