Free speech on their property then. I couldn’t care less about Reddit as a company, but if I feel like they’re restricting free speech on their site I’m gone and they’ve lost part of their business. They’ve already done it with a few subreddits, but that was ostensibly because they broke other Reddit regulations.
Well, I can’t cry for the residents of said village, there is already many places for them to go. Some are totally devoted to their particular foolishness, and others are set up expressly to be the thing that some people think Reddit should have been (I’d never heard of Voat before this dust up).
In addition to the “not on my property” angle, you must remember that the traffic you attract isn’t necessarily free, especially when it comes to hosting an internet site. One of my company’s customers registered a domain that was obviously in favor of immolating certain sacred texts, and directed its traffic to the server we hosted for them. The ardent believers in same texts reacted predictably, and quickly organized a very effective DDoS against their server, which effectively made us choke while we tried to drink from the fire hose of traffic it sent our way.
It’s an extreme example, but: ooooh, you’d better believe he had to pay that bandwidth overage. I doubt coontown attracts that kind of attention, but I am sure that kind of content has a non-zero cost to a commercial enterprise. If that cost is significant, and you aren’t making money from porn, that content is probably first on the chopping block. If this isn’t a charitable organization (and Reddit sure isn’t), I don’t know where the argument or disconnect might be.
Not really - we’re a pretty niche market and I’d prefer to keep it that way.
Reddit claims to be the frontpage of the internet, and well, have you met the internet? 
I think there are people that assume Reddit users have a lot more loyalty to the site than actually exists.
Reddit’s draw is entirely based on user content. If the content wasn’t there no one would be using the site. Reddit changing policy and rules always creates controversy that makes it to the front page where everyone is subjected to it. If this keep happening users will just find somewhere else to be.
Reddit has hundreds of subreddits that I find the content objectionable. My solution is to not subscribe to them. I have no need to know what’s going on in r/bestiality or r/spacedicks. If a subreddit actually impacts other aspects of the site I would support booting it to the curb.
Reddit can do whatever they want. If what they do causes the content I enjoy to move elsewhere I’ll follow the content I enjoy to where it moves.
Why is it a problem for you if they were to institute new “Reddit regulations” that r/coontown violated?
A private company deciding to choose what message they provide a platform for is their right correct?
That’s just dumb as it is a very inaccurate poisoning the well technique. And completely unworkable. Progress has come in society because unpopular and offensive views, offensive to the status quo, were able to be expressed. What you are advocating is a virtual censorship and is incompatible with freedom.
What does deciding what messages other people get to post in your space (or website) have to do with freedom?
Not hosting or labeling someone’s racist views is incompatible with freedom?
That’s being a little disingenuous. This isn’t just “their space”; it is a space explicitly created for discussion.
Deciding that the Heckler’s Veto is an acceptable thing, deciding it’s appropriate to go after someone’s job because they said something offensive like, oh, I don’t know, “I think gays should be allowed to get married” (an idea that would have been horrifically offensive to much of the population just a few years ago) is very much about freedom.
Deciding that since it’s an offensive idea that gays can get married, the idea can’t be publicly discussed on a public discussion board, would be an affront to the idea of free speech (the concept, not the legal doctrine).
The concept of free speech, the idea that one doesn’t have to listen to people who have offensive ideas, but they do have the fairly-consequence free (seriously, people who claim that “Free speech doesn’t mean speech without consequences” are not nature’s deep thinkers. By that standard with have freedom to murder*, too) right to say it, subject to time and place restrictions, is a complicated one.
No one is suggesting that one should wander around the office making racist statements. However, if a website wishes to have the reputation for allowing discussion,
they have to allow discussion of things that many find offensive.
Whether one is free to have and express views that the majority find offensive, and to express those views in a place expressly created for the expression of views, without fear of arbitrary and frequently disproportionate reprisals from the majority is sort of the definition of freedom.
- Just not “Freedom to murder without consequences”.
Because I like it as a place where everybody can come and talk about everything – also things which offends you. A bit of anarchy which you can dive into to get a real sense of what goes on out there. There are a trillion places where people can come and discuss things which are properly patrolled after the rules of police society. Reddit is a bit unique in that it seems to have wider set of boundaries. But if Reddit wants to become a clone of one of those many other sites then they should do so. It won’t be as interesting and it’ll be without me.
Also because as I wrote it’s a first-they-came-for-the-Socialists… thingy. There are a ton of dubious subreddits that could be up next.
/r/mensrights is another group which has often been mentioned that should be banned. Also /r/redpill and what about /r/exmuslims – that’s gonna be unpopular in some countries and communities. And exChristian; exJew; etc. /r/scientology probably doesn’t make Scientologists happy. /r/communism is probably seen as horrible, and possible illegal, in various East European countries. /r/wtf is pretty fucked some times, so is /r/ShitRedditSays and perhaps /r/tumblrinaction etc. etc.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean it has to be open for everything. The one (individual or company) who opens the space has the “freedom” to boot those they feel are being disruptive, or offensive, or rude, or whatever.
Who is advocating going after someone’s job?
Who is advocating that an idea “can’t be publicly discussed on a public discussion board”? I’m saying that if I owned reddit, I wouldn’t allow subreddits like r/coontown, and the fact that they do makes me think less highly of them. But I’m not saying they must boot them – just that I think they should.
The murder thing is absurd. Who is for “freedom to murder”? I don’t understand how this is relevant.
Why? The SDMB has standards, and certain topics (like “should we round up the Jews and kill them?” or “what are your favorite racial slurs?”) would be off limits. Why is it wrong for reddit to have similar standards?
It’s not arbitrary – I don’t support any arbitrary bootings on reddit. I think that there should be non-arbitrary standards that disallow overt hate speech, racial slurs, harassment, and the like. And I don’t see how some private operator of a discussion space is restricting anyone’s freedom by having standards of this sort – everyone has the freedom to say anything they want, but I can decide I don’t want some kind of message in my space, even if it is a space for discussion.
There already are standards on Reddit, such that certain things aren’t allowed. Are you saying that you don’t like those standards, but can live with them as long as they aren’t expanded to disallow subreddits like r/coontown?
If you go around censoring and shutting down subreddits whose speech you disagree with, you are within your rights as a business, but you don’t get to call yourself “a bastion of free speech” because you aren’t.
I haven’t spent much time on it and the whole issue is not something which lies heavy on my heart. The standards as they are seem for many of them a bit silly and not really enforced anyway. I think one is not allowed to link to other subreddits, but /r/shitredditsays do it all the time (I use them as an index for funny posts). In any case, as I understand it the rules are mainly for how to post, not what to post. Although I suppose there must be rules against childporn and harrasment and such (the last is what they got fatpeoplehate on).
This concept should be emphasized when the 1st amendment is covered in every high school civics class. Self-proclaimed defenders of free speech make themselves look exceptionally ignorant when they support people saying hateful stuff, but then suddenly have a problem with the resulting boycotts, protests, and disciplinary actions by employers.
-
If you’re running a general discussion board, you’re running a general discussion board.
-
Not Really All That Bright suggests that going after someones job is speech.
-
Hosting a place where people talk makes me think highly of them. Clearly, it only does if it is about things you find acceptable.
-
It’s called an analogy. People say “Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences”. That’s absurd. By that standard, we have “freedom of murder”, too (which doesn’t mean "freedom of murder without consequences). If you are not one of the people using this ill-thought-out saying, then this doesn’t apply to you.
-
Frankly, I do not trust your standards. The government standard of “no true threats against an identifiable group” is about where I draw the line.
-
Reddit isn’t “your” space. They can, of course, boot the forum if they wish, and, had I ever actually read Reddit, I would probably then quit. Yes, Reddit’s freedom to maintain their space obviously trumps my freedom to say what I wish - the can certainly decide what is allowable there.
However, there is a pretty big tradition on the internet of leaning toward setting up spaces where people can say things that, frankly, make the site owner’s blood boil, and still allowing it. It’s a difficult standard to accept, the idea that people have and profess horrible views, but it is one that has long existed on the internet.
Exactly. Many on this board seem to feel that free speech is something that should NEVER be censored by government, but that we are entitled only to as much free speech as CORPORATIONS will allow.
You think there are people on this board who believe in no government censorship? I think you will be hard pressed to find someone who thinks that no speech should be censored. Child pornography is a classic example.
And corporations should be able to control the speech they are hosting and paying for.
Oh, I see. So “The government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech” doesn’t mean what it plainly and clearly says. Got it.
Yes, we are all allowed only as much speech as corporations will permit. Got it.