Reddit implements new rules to combat "hate speech" selectively; bans over 2,000 sub-Reddits

[Steve]

They've implemented a bunch of new rules regarding so-called "hate speech", except they've chosen to only implement the rules selectively, so they've explicitly stated the following: -

 

 

 

While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rules does not protect groups of people who are in the majority.....

 

Of course, they've not provided a full list of the banned sub-Reddits, nor can they define what "hate speech" even is. Someone rightfully asked what "the majority" even means when talking about a site that's accessible worldwide, but of course, they got no reply.

 

What a shit show.

[JHouse]

There's been so much "hate speech" on Facebook lately. Actually, it's obviously been going on for ages, but it's to the point where I seldom want to access the site anymore. Seriously considering removing my account because it's just so negative, not to mention, super self-centered. People tell me to just use Instagram instead, but that's ridiculously narcissistic too and really don't want to go down that rabbit hole. I got shit to do.

[Steve]

I permanently deleted my Facebook and Twitter accounts a long time ago and I don't miss being on those sites at all. Anyone that I care about has several ways to talk to me.

 

What concerns me though, is the power that these large corporations have when it comes to censoring people. That's not even the most concerning thing - it's that lots of people are fine with it happening, as long as people they disagree with are the ones being censored.

[Deft]

I'm obviously getting old and confused, but I struggle to see the overall net benefit of social media. I don't engage with it much. Even comments sections on news articles can give me moderate rage. I don't think it's natural to constantly argue with opposing points of view. I don't have the time, energy or willpower to do that. Plus it reminds me how dumb most people are (yes I'm looking down on you plebs).

[Steve]

Being dumb, ignorant, racist, spreading rumors or 'alternative facts' does not require some sort of protection in the name of free speech. There is nothing concerning about corporations banning false or straight up ignorant comments. Hate speech does not deserve any kind of protection.

 

So you want the employees of large corporations to decide on your behalf what is "dumb, ignorant, a rumour, or an 'alternative fact'", then remove it so that you can't even see it to make your own mind up? That's very trusting of you. In the case of Reddit, it's not even trained employees. It's unpaid forum moderators.

 

As for "hate speech", nobody can even clearly define what it is. For example, in the UK we've seen people arrested or warned by the police for making jokes, for posting rap lyrics online, or for saying that a person's sex is defined by biology. Last week a man was fined £280 for referring to an Irish person as a "leprechaun".

 

On the flipside, it's quite telling what these social networks DON'T remove, such as all of the people celebrating that Boris Johnson had caught Coronavirus and, in some cases, publicly saying that they hope he dies from it. Apparently wishing for someone's death isn't quite hateful enough to count as "hate speech".....

[djdiggla]

I'm obviously getting old and confused, but I struggle to see the overall net benefit of social media.

 

Ditto.

[Deft]

I always try to draw parallels with "real life" vs social media, though really social media is now "real life". I'm sure walking down a high-street (back when people used to go shopping), you'd find crackpots with little stands blabbing on about salvation / healing through God, vaccines or some other bullshit. We accepted that people could do this but I guess their reach was pretty minimal, a few disinterested passerby's. Social media seems to allow you to reach a global audience and there is something about the technology and speed at which misinformation can spread which seems to make it dangerous. Perhaps people are slicker with modern media and presentations - plus the proper batshit/propaganda where videos or audio are edited to give a particular view.

It highlights that a lot of people cannot critically assess data or at least have pause for thought. I generally don't mind people holding whatever views they want as long as it doesn't affect/harm anyone else. Plus I don't get offended easily, so I shrug most stuff off as being "just another batshit person who doesn't affect me". I guess there will always be flat-earthers or weird conspiracy theorists, and the internet has enabled them to reach people who are "susceptible" to bullshit.

I think allowing the internet to be a total free for all, though perhaps a noble idea, doesn't bear out in reality. You have to have some degree of moderation, but these systems seem too big to manage properly and will always be open to criticism of moderation bias - especially when it relates to politics. This is the problem with trying to moderate a platform where the whole basis of it is that anyone can post anything they want. There also seems to be no current real comeback for these modern publishing "platforms". In the real world, the editor of a newspaper bears some responsibility for the content and there seems to be a well defined mechanism for challenging, getting formal retraction etc. Doesn't mean there isn't silly bullshit in traditional print. Social media feels like it is a weird exaggerated view of the human mindset. It removes that social barrier to acting like a twat too. Generally you try your best to tolerate people that you have to, even if you hate the cunts.

 

The whole thing of constantly being confronted with opposing opinions is just weird to me (e.g. Twitter). Again, in real life, you tend to gravitate towards people with shared interest and similar outlooks in life. I'm all for a bit of debate but you don't go down the pub with your mates to have full on conflict arguments every night. Perhaps this goes back to the "no politics or religion talk at the dinner table". I occasionally read my local village Facebook page, and even on that subsection of society, I think "thank fuck" I don't have to interact with those goons.

[Dan]

The problem with social media is it gave everyone a voice and 99.9% of people are cunts that don't deserve to be heard. But they get into their little echo chambers and suddenly think there opinion is right. Take flat earthers or these cunts that think 5G will kill them or anti vaxxers.

 

And reddit is just full of shit, no rules they bring in will ever fix it. I follow a couple of subreddits for hobbies I'm into and they are great (small subs) but any time I browse "all" it makes me sad for humanity.

[Steve]

[watzz]

[Steve]

Reddit have already backtracked on the whole "majority" thing, and rightly so. They were unable to even define exactly what that meant when asked for a simple definition. Did it mean the majority of the Reddit user base? The majority of the population of the US? The majority of the population of the planet? I think most people knew what it meant, but there was no way they were going to outright say it, so they removed it from the site rules.

[Steve]

BTW, regarding that Sacha Baron Cohen video, it's certainly easy to clap along to what he's saying, but he simultaneously called FB one of the biggest propaganda mongers on the planet while also saying that the solution to that should be that they become fact checkers.

 

Also, if you look at the history of the Nazis in the run up to WWII, some prominent Nazis were prosecuted for what essentially amounted to hate speech, multiple times in some cases, and all it did is make them martyrs. It's kinda like how when Alex Jones got banned from YouTube, it just strengthened the belief of his followers that he's telling the truth and is being silenced as a result of it. It doesn't stop people from believing utter horse shit and in a lot of cases, it just strengthens their resolve.

[Shimmer]

Private companies should be allowed ban whatever they want, like those cake shops who don’t wanna make wedding cakes for homosexuals.

[danswift]

cake shops who don’t wanna make wedding cakes for homosexuals.

And those are the type of people that have their brains firmly wedged up their assholes,coupled with a mentality that rightfully belongs back in the dark ages.

 

These fuckwits need to open their eyes, take their heads out of the fucking sand and get with the program.

 

We've moved on.

 

It's the year 2020 for fucks sake not 1845.

[Steve]

I think the problem with private companies being allowed to ban whatever they want is when just a handful of those companies control a huge swathe of online discourse, for example, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, and YouTube.

 

Censorship is just making many people more and more polarised, while the folks in the middle largely stay quiet cos they can't be arsed with the hassle that comes with publicly taking a stance on a particular topic.

 

The current Reddit CEO said this in an interview a few years ago: -

 

I'm confident that Reddit could sway elections. We wouldn't do it, of course. And I don't know how many times we could get away with it. But, if we really wanted to, I'm sure Reddit could have swayed at least this election, this once.

These companies are not unbiased, nor are the people that run them. They are interfering in the democratic processes of numerous countries, and they collude with each other to do it.

[djdiggla]

A lot like traditional media once was but even more powerful. Traditional media were more gatekeepers (although they had bias as well). Social networks are far more dangerous.