SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the when-people-don't-think-things-through-all-the-way dept.
According to /u/Spez, Reddit CEO, the reports of messages edited without any user consent or knowledge are correct as he admits to have done it so himself:
Hey Everyone,
Yep. I messed with the "fuck u/spez" comments, replacing "spez" with r/the_donald mods for about an hour. It's been a long week here trying to unwind the r/pizzagate stuff. As much as we try to maintain a good relationship with you all, it does get old getting called a pedophile constantly. As the CEO, I shouldn't play such games, and it's all fixed now. Our community team is pretty pissed at me, so I most assuredly won't do this again.
Fuck u/spez.
The edits were made in a thread linked from the Washington Post which described the recent ban of the /r/pizzagate subreddit which tried to uncover child-molesters and recently moved to voat.co.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @10:27PM
I don't believe that any major online site really has any moral authority to edit much more than the "seven words you'll never hear on television".
And why would they have the moral authority to edit (censor) those words if they don't have the moral authority to censor other things? Because people are offended by them? Because society has arbitrarily deemed them to be bad? Because of other subjective feelings? Well, now you've opened up the door to censorship based on offense, which is a sign that you've failed.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @10:36PM
NIGGER
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mhajicek on Saturday November 26 2016, @11:36PM
Exactly. Downmod, yes. Censor, no. Defend to the death and all that.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @09:59PM
generally i try to reply, then downmod. censoring is best left for others; before I censor something I'll have found a new venue. Let the people I want to censor talk amongst themselves if I have grown out of the bubble they are in.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 26 2016, @10:50PM
Nope. No one gives a damn that you're offended. I can offend you all day long, I just can't call you a fuckwad on most venues. Fuck you, and fuck your feelings, little snowflake.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @12:07AM
So you say that they don't have the moral authority to "edit" most things, but they do have the moral authority to do so to certain words? It seems you missed the point...
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 27 2016, @12:29AM
You're missing the point. The whole PG-13 point. It's a socially accepted norm, in the US of A, that you make some attempt to keep public boards "clean" enough for children.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @12:39AM
that you make some attempt to keep public boards "clean" enough for children.
Well, if you're going to act like children ...
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday November 27 2016, @06:19AM
Should I link some of the weird-ass sissy pr0n that's been posted lately to the TF fiction board I go to? I mean, I don't read those since I prefer the stories about strong women and Amazons. Even just the summaries are weird—like people who fantasize about wearing diapers. I don't get it, but it seems to be where PC culture is headed. (Also see every iteration of the comic code, etc.) Diapers for everyone! Yeeech.
Even those “bimbocalypse” stories make more sense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @01:39AM
I'm not missing the point. If they don't have the moral authority to censor more serious subject matters, then I don't see why they would have the moral authority to censor specific words that may cause offense. If they have the moral authority to do the latter, then anything offensive could be censored. Socially accepted norms are irrelevant, because it sounds like you were describing a personal standard ("moral authority").
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 27 2016, @01:55AM
PG-13 isn't my personal standard. Which century are you posting from? If you're posting from the 18th century, then I can understand that you don't understand PG-13, or R, or the X's. There are limits to the things that may be posted to forums accessible by children. Now, if you locked your own kids in the closet years back, then I can understand your lack of concern about the content on public forums.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Sunday November 27 2016, @10:13AM
I just happen to believe that it is a parents' job and responsibility to raise their children, not the state's. Children will access things that you might not wish them to see no matter what measures you take. Far better then to teach them responsibility, to feel that they can always turn to their parents for honest advice on any topic, and to let them mature into decent adults with no hang-ups.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @02:25AM
You said: "I don't believe that any major online site really has any moral authority to edit much more than the "seven words you'll never hear on television"." Notice the "I". You were clearly talking about your standard. I see absolutely no reason that major online sites would have the moral authority to censor words you or others don't like but would not have the moral authority to censor opinions you or others don't like. It's incredibly silly, because either way you're just censoring to protect people's feelings.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 29 2016, @05:15AM
Well - if you don't see the difference between vulgarity, and opinion, then you just don't see it. Even congress and parliaments around the world exchange ideas and thoughts freely, but they aren't free to curse members. The word that applies is "decorum". If you and I call each other stupid sons of bitches, that adds nothing to the exchange of ideas - it's nonsense. Why bother with it? Yeah, I guess I do indulge now and then in nonsensical name calling, but it adds nothing to the discussion.
What matters is the free exchange of ideas, not the ability to insult each other meaninglessly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @04:18AM
It used to be the law. Communications Decency Act and Child Online Protection Act, we hardly knew you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @02:22AM
Which were rightly struck down for being blatantly unconstitutional. Besides that, censoring things for children merely because some parents don't want their kids to see that content is highly unjust; any 'harm' caused by kids seeing the content is totally subjective and more than likely it's a personal standard of the parents. Let parents handle such things themselves, even if it is difficult.