"We will not ban questionable subreddits," Reddit's then-CEO, Yishan Wong, wrote mere months ago. "You choose what to post. You choose what to read. You choose what kind of subreddit to create."
But in an apparent reversal of that policy, and in an unprecedented effort to clean up its long-suffering image, Reddit has just banned five "questionable subreddits."
The site permanently removed the forums Wednesday afternoon for harassing specific, named individuals, a spokesperson said. Of the five, two were dedicated to fat-shaming, one to transphobia, one to racism and one to harassing members of a progressive video game site.
Unsurprisingly, a vocal contingent of Redditors aren't taking the changes well: "Reddit increases censorship," read one post on r/freespeech, while forums like r/mensrights and r/opieandanthony theorized they would be next.
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Friday June 12 2015, @02:45PM
Many well-known successful groups of benign idealists become victim of their own success, to the point where the original leaders even disavow the acts and ideals of the very organization they started. New converts jump on the gravy train but need more fuel to sustain their momentum or purpose for existing, so they become more extreme to protect their newfound power and keep growing their base, and when others confront them about how they're straying from their ideals they double down and pull the persecution card.
The Crusades, Spanish Inquisition
French Revolution
US Tea Party
Greenpeace
MADD
PETA
Parent Television Council
Modern examples seem to be more liberal/progressive groups, I think because by definition they're looking to improve or change the status quo. Conservative/regressive groups like anti-abortion organizations, men's rights, anti-LGBTQ lobbies, etc tend not to get more extreme because they don't see much social or legal advancement of their causes, and/or start off extreme to begin with (the evangelical anti-science lobby is an exception, having seen some success in forcing creationism into school science classes and legally denying the existence or mention of climate change in some places).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @09:04PM
The idea that women can't / shouldn't own their own bodies is about as extreme as you can get.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @11:27AM
You are grossly misrepresenting them. The idea is not that women shouldn't own their bodies, the ideas is that they shouldn't own the souls of their unborn babies. As an atheist I find it ridiculous, but at least I can see where they are coming from.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @03:53PM
Except there's no such thing as a "soul" and unborn fetuses are nothing more than parasites until they're born. Unborn babies do not have self-sovereignty, they can't because they're not born! How does being infested with a parasite make one lose ownership of their own body? How does that logic work?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @04:41PM
Furthermore, I just had this argument in person - "So you think those whores should be able to go out fucking whoever they want, being sluts, and abort hundreds of babies?", "They should give it up for adoption!" (with refusal to acknowledge the near year and risk to life and health required to carry it to term and birth it), and "Then they shouldn't be having sex in the first place! Sex has consequences!". There is no mischaracterization about the anti-abortion movement - it is pure misogyny, that women who dare have any kind of libido should have to suffer the consequences of pregnancy every time they have sex, that women should not be able to own their own bodies because they're nothing more than property, masturbation material for men to be used up and thrown away as the man sees fit. And to top it off, the person I heard those quotes from is a total deadbeat dad who has all his property in other people's names, and wanted to put his new vehicle in my name today, so that they won't be taken away because of all the back-child support he owes.