Study finds Reddit’s ban of hate speech subreddits reduces overall hate speech

[Slant]

So well all keep ignoring the problem? Got ya.

It's not reddit's job to end racism and hate. It's yours. Own up to your own responsibilities and stop shifting it to someone else.

[Deleted]

That's because they IP ban as well. Unless you buy a VPN and then connect each time and post with a new account, you will be shadowbanned and not show in the study as a valid comment. So it's not a socker that when you ban a lot of subreddits, impose harsh measures and silence the users they will go elsewhere where they can speak and just browse reddit as "read only" mode.

ps: Ofc when I reported a romanian "pot smoking" subreddit, where users posted smoking and driving they took 0 actions. Subreddit is alive and well now, users still post illegal activities.

[Antius]

So they came to the conclusion that suppressing something effectively reduces it...

[Slant]

So they came to the conclusion that suppressing something effectively reduces it...

The conclusion is that banning hate reddits reduces hatespeech overall on reddit. Not just because that one reddit is gone, but because people post less hatespeech elsewhere as well.

[Deleted]

Hold on let me put into context that some of you can understand. "7.3 is the worst patch ever. Done with new content in 2 hours. Not enough world quest and it takes forever to travel anywhere."

Usual response : "STOP TROLLING, YOU ARE JUST BAD AT THE GAME!

Usual response: "another troll thread just ignore and report"

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Not what suits you.

[Themius]

Sort of not his point. His point is if you really want to address the problem you have to face it as some point. You can't just wish it away.

- - - Updated - - -



A hell of a lot less than is being spent on wars we shouldn't have started.

Hateful and racist people typically are too stupid to reason with.

[AeneasBK]

Hiding things under the rag, wont make em go away.If you ban someone from speaking his mind on a certain platform, he will simply find another one.Unless we care of what we see, than what is actually happening

Seems like a perfectly fine solution.

[Deleted]

ITT: Water is wet.

[Egomaniac]

Hiding things under the rag, wont make em go away.If you ban someone from speaking his mind on a certain platform, he will simply find another one.Unless we care of what we see, than what is actually happening

If I kick someone out of my restaurant for hate speech...it isn't my responsibility to keep him from going into another restaurant where he will do the same.

[Deleted]

The conclusion is that banning hate reddits reduces hatespeech overall on reddit. Not just because that one reddit is gone, but because people post less hatespeech elsewhere as well.

That is exactly what he said!? They suppressed something effectively and it got reduced. It is not very hard to imagine that if you remove a reddit and start banning the accounts active on that reddit, that the people behind these accounts will go elsewhere.

[Elim Garak]

Anyway...

(Those people on the sandals were the enemies of Egypt)

Are you genuinely obtuse or intentionally?

[mvaliz]

Hate speech is currently an arbitrary and meaningless term. Until someone makes an objective model of it, it can be any sentence that hurt someones feelings.

Google search "Definition of Hate Speech" and this comes up:

Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.

I believe that's a pretty specific and meaningful definition and model.

And don't give me any shit about "lol@wikipedia" or any nonsense - my point is there is a pretty specific definition for it that is accepted in culture today. You denying reality doesn't help move things forward at all.

[Deleted]

That's what you literally are saying though, not all opinions are worth the same and can be silenced if they don't agree with you...after all, it's just a challenge to force your way through censorship after all.

At no point did I express any sentiment towards what is ok or isn't.
It isn't productive to pretend unpopular ideas start on the same ground. Want your idea to spread like wildfire?: work for it; expect consequences.

[Deleted]

Google search "Definition of Hate Speech" and this comes up:


I believe that's a pretty specific and meaningful definition and model.

And don't give me any shit about "lol@wikipedia" or any nonsense - my point is there is a pretty specific definition for it that is accepted in culture today. You denying reality doesn't help move things forward at all.

Key issue there is what's a real "attack". Look at the Pewdiepie thing, white developers got butthurt about him saying ni**er on stream. People thousand of miles away that had zero interaction with set person felt the "attack".

[Deleted]

Its sad that the ones who like hate speech care more about your rights than the ones who don't, yes.

I mean... you're the one proposing the rights of social media sites be "regulated".

[Elim Garak]

I believe that's a pretty specific and meaningful definition and model.

It's too general. Not every attack on a person or a group is hateful. "Damn them blacks have yuge lips"
The concept of hate speech is meaningless. There's hate and there's speech. There's no hate speech.

[Deleted]

Sure hate speech is nasty but whats next? Especially in today's age where making a comment that you like pizza with ham on it could make you a neo nazi that hates Jewish people.

Try having Pineapple on your pizza and you'll have the internet police at home before you can eat it.

[Deleted]

I believe that's a pretty specific and meaningful definition and model.

It is meaningful in that it conveys an idea.
It's not specific at all: it doesn't even give a definite account of the attributes, just an enumeration of which ones could be. "attacks a person" is also very unspecific in what "attack" means exactly. This is left to the arbitration of each jurisdiction.
It is arbitrary in that it could be that list or any other; someone arbitrated which attributes are to be on the list.

I'm ok with things being arbitrary, though.

- - - Updated - - -

It's too general. Not every attack on a person or a group is hateful. "Damn them blacks have yuge lips"
The concept of hate speech is meaningless. There's hate and there's speech. There's no hate speech.

It clearly isn't meaningless: most developed countries have a concept of it.

[Sting]

Good thing I can still use that site to watch people die, cum on anime figurines or mutilate pretty much any bodypart.

[Deleted]

This site lists about 1000 cases in which the US did not protect freedom of speech: from arresting people who spoke out against being drafted to expressing pro-German or fascist views during WW2.

That so many anti-war protesters have seen themselves silenced is all the more reason for citizens to request government leave their speech alone.
If only free speech advocates were principled in their approach, rather than only complain when bigotry is chilled, I'd have more sympathy for the cause.