Reddit's biggest pro-Donald forum disappears from the website's most popular page.

[Jastall]

I don't see where what they said is arguing to have their speech limited. He clearly stated "that's their right". The argument is more of, while you have the right, should you? If my goal is to offer a open platform for discussing and sharing ideas, closing down threads with ideas I don't like, would seem to go against the very thing I'm claiming to stand for.

I, myself, am fine with closing a sub form\reddit if the conversation has left the realm of semi reasonable, if it's nothing more than a "fuck you", "no, fuck you" conversation then any hopes for worthwhile ideas getting exchanged is out the window and that defeats the purpose of what they are after. I'd need to see some kind of evidence that it was actually changing minds to consider leaving it open.

It wasn't closed last I checked (I don't follow reddit closely anymore). It's off the r/all page unless you apply filters. You can still access it at will if you know where to find it, it just doesn't pollute the frontpage anymore with its bot-assisted mass upvote of shitposting and bullshit, which was against the site's rules.

And there wasn't any discussion going on. Like most zealous subreddits, anyone who didn't toe the party line was mass downvoted and booted almost immediately. The subreddit wasn't ''silenced'' or ''banned'' (like r/alt-right was), they broke the rules and got slapped for it.

And at the risk of repeating myself; they are basically the last people on the internet who have any right to take the moral high ground here. They shat on free speech every single day with reckless abandon to have their safe space. Now they are just angry to have a taste of their own medicine.

[Endus]

I don't see where what they said is arguing to have their speech limited. He clearly stated "that's their right". The argument is more of, while you have the right, should you? If my goal is to offer a open platform for discussing and sharing ideas, closing down threads with ideas I don't like, would seem to go against the very thing I'm claiming to stand for.

If you were trying to open a forum for ALL views, then yes, that would be hypocritical.

Reddit, however, has clear terms of use; https://www.reddit.com/help/useragreement/
https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy

Things that are banned include anything that;
- encourages or incites violence,
- threatens, harasses, bullies anyone, or encourages such
- any kind of personal info (doxxing)

and a note that their rules are meant to be followed in spirit, and that looking for loopholes to get around them is pointless. Reddit was never the free-for-all you people claim it was. There's no hypocrisy at all.

[Danner]

Except that you are completely wrong about what free speech is.

Reddit's website is their venue. It's their platform for speech. You're arguing that their freedoms be restricted in favor of other people's, which is not a defense of individual liberties. It's picking a side and saying "we get all the rights, and everyone who disagrees with us gets nothing, because fuck them for not being with us".

Anything published by Reddit is their speech, at a certain level. You're attacking their right to control their own speech.

There is a difference between legal, moral and ideal here. The poster I replied to was arguing from a legal point of view. That is a terrible argument, period. Laws do not exist to arbitrate what is right and wrong. It is the other way around.

From a moral point of view, I agreed Reddit should not be forced to convey expressions they do not want to convey. We agree on this, and you are misinterpreting me if you think I said otherwise. Reddit can be censor whatever reddit want to censor. Their platforms, their rules.

But there is also the ideal of freedom of speech to consider. That ideal says that no ideas should be shut down by force. Is there a moral obligation for Reddit to be a platform of free speech? No. But should they aim to be that? Hell yes! And in deliberately not doing so, they make the world a little bit worse.

Since you seem to be on the side of "their site, their rules" being the way things should always be, what is your thought about this case here?
https://qz.com/778569/facebook-fb-ca...nam-war-photo/

Was that a case of a vicious prime minister bullying a private corporation into changing their rules in face of unjust political pressure, or was that a victory for free speech?

[Blur4stuff]

There are thousands of opposing opinions on just about every subject on reddit. This isn't about getting rid of opinions they don't agree with because if that were the case the entire site would have to go down.

The group of people you see on this particular sub reddit and other places like pol... and to a smaller extent here... are extremely hateful and just dump toxic waste all over everything. They have no interest in finding solutions to real problems.

[Endus]

There is a difference between legal, moral and ideal here. The poster I replied to was arguing from a legal point of view. That is a terrible argument, period. Laws do not exist to arbitrate what is right and wrong. It is the other way around.

From a moral point of view, I agreed Reddit should not be forced to convey expressions they do not want to convey. We agree on this, and you are misinterpreting me if you think I said otherwise. Reddit can be censor whatever reddit want to censor. Their platforms, their rules.

But there is also the ideal of freedom of speech to consider. That ideal says that no ideas should be shut down by force. Is there a moral obligation for Reddit to be a platform of free speech? No. But should they aim to be that? Hell yes! And in deliberately not doing so, they make the world a little bit worse.

Yeah, no. You're just badmouthing Reddit because they're not willing to sacrifice their own rights in the ways you want them to. Your position isn't rooted in some "ideal", because fundamentally, you're trying to restrict Reddit's options, even if just "idealistically". That's an assault on the concept of freedom of speech, right there. And yet, somehow, you think you're defending the concept.

This is how free speech works. Everyone's rights get defended. Not just the users you want to support. Reddit's rights too.

Since you seem to be on the side of "their site, their rules" being the way things should always be, what is your thought about this case here?
https://qz.com/778569/facebook-fb-ca...nam-war-photo/

Was that a case of a vicious prime minister bullying a private corporation into changing their rules in face of unjust political pressure, or was that a victory for free speech?

Neither.

Facebook would have been fine to continue to eliminate that image. They decided that their standards didn't warrant them doing so, on reconsideration, which is why they put the images back up. It wasn't a "victory for free speech", nor was the PM "bullying" anyone. They had a discussion, and Facebook changed their minds on that particular ruling. That's it.

[Kakera]

Free Speech doesn't apply to privately owned websites(Company's). So all of those pissy about it can get the fuck over it.

Thread should have ended here because this is pretty much the sum of it.

[want my Slimjim]

That's facism for ya right there.

[Kujako]

Yet I'm still compelled to take photos or bake a cake for a gay wedding regardless if I'm okay with it or not. Who are the real fascists now, huh?

You're being forced to be a baker & photographer against your will? Weird...

[Orbitus]

That will depend on how long the internet stays privatized. Soon as it's deemed a public utility that may not hold water.

Even if the internet becomes a public utility, that doesn't change the fact that Reddit can censor and ban what they want.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, its a good thing Reddit is not a cake baking company, cause then they WOULD be in trouble!!!

Totally different things but hey, keep trying.

[kail]

While they're well within their rights to run their site how they deem fit, you could argue they've got a responsibility to give a platform to all opinions as long as they don't break the law. Same as Twitter, Facebook and any popular enough social media. All three used by millions the world over, a smorgasborg of peoples and opinions.

If you start out with this inclusive stance (or grow into it) but then revoke it when it suits you, you just come off as a petty coward. You're essentially signaling you can't handle opposition or their arguments, so you'd rather just silence them instead. But they're a privately owned site, right, so they can do as they please.

I'm sure people holding that opinion feel the same way about employment and businesses.

Difference here is that employment involves the wellbeing and capability to live of employees. I don't think that applies to a private forum platform.

[Orbitus]

That's facism for ya right there.

Nope. You have no fucking clue what fascism is.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Didn't Reddit get exposed for how easily their /popular and front page could be manipulated by anyone with the will or the $$$ not even two weeks ago?

[Mad_Murdock]

and a note that their rules are meant to be followed in spirit, and that looking for loopholes to get around them is pointless. Reddit was never the free-for-all you people claim it was. There's no hypocrisy at all.

Whoa whoa whoa! What do you mean by "you people"?! I don't know that I claimed anything myself, I thought we moved on from the exact issue and more to the point of speaking in fairly broad generic terms (what should free speech means verus the legal definition of the US constitution). And whether their(reddits) actions matched their mission statement if they did close sub reddits. Not from a legalese standpoint, but as you noted, a spirit of the idea

Again, they can close it down because it was sunny out today, I fully support their rights to do so.

[Heladys]

How the fuck did all the "free speech" morons get through school without learning what it actually is? Christ you people are tiresome with your uneducated yammerings.

[Bakis]

How the fuck did all the "free speech" morons get through school without learning what it actually is? Christ you people are tiresome with your uneducated yammerings.

Amen
/10char

[Zan15]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti.../> Free<br />

god how many more people have to complain about free speech before they actually take the time to read the law and understand their rights when it comes to a private company.


you know what they are FREE TO DO .....start their own freaking web site and rail all they want about the donny boy.

but they won't do that because the angry kid stamping the ground all by himself gets no attention.

[LilSaihah]

Every website does this. I bet this website deletes weird shit.

Besides, why would you discus politics on Reddit? There is so much sweet shit on Reddit, politics should be the last thing you visit. Have you ever checked out /r/politics? Its a fucking cesspool of far right and far left people arguing all day. it should be renamed to /r/MyDadCanBeatUpYourDad .

https://www.reddit.com/r/relationshi...e_flowers_and/

[want my Slimjim]

Nope. You have no fucking clue what fascism is.

I do and it's attracted alot by the left.

[noidentity]

It's not like they actually deleted the "The_Donald" subreddit, all they did was make sure the subreddit never appears in the popular section.

I just wish they would also allow us to filter all of the other Pro/Anti Trump subreddits that we don't want to see. For now i'll just stick to /r/All with my filters intact.

[Orbitus]

I do and it's attracted alot by the left.

And you would be wrong. Fascism is predominantly a right wing ideology. But thanks for playing.