SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The BBC are reporting that troubled community website Reddit has lost another female member of its senior team with the resignation of chief engineer Bethanye Blount, only days after the resignation of Ellen Pao. The BBC report continues:
Ms Blount told website Recode she believed Ms Pao had been put on a "glass cliff" - or set up to fail. Victoria Taylor, who oversaw a popular question-and-answer section of the site, was sacked last month.
"Victoria wasn't on a glass cliff. But it's hard for me to see it any other way than Ellen was," Bethanye Blount said in an interview.
But Ms Blount, a former Facebook employee, added that her own decision to leave Reddit just two months after joining, had not been based on gender issues. And new chief executive, Steve Huffman, said he was "confident" that the site could recruit female executives.
The phrase "glass cliff" is used to describe women placed in leadership roles during times of crisis, when positive change is hard to achieve.
[...]
Despite the ongoing turmoil, Reddit is in good financial shape, according to Mr Huffman, also one of its co-founders.
"Reddit has a lot of cash," he said, in an Ask Me Anything session on the site.. "Monetisation isn't a short-term concern of ours."
The site currently attracts 164 million monthly users.
Original Submission
(Score: 3, Insightful) by quadrox on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:19AM
Just in case you were askin in earnest, GPs point was that if you only accept certain speech (based on some more or less subjective criteria), what you are left with is only "tolerated speach" (as in speech that is only allowed because someone approved it) instead of "free speach" (as in you can say whatever the fuck you want, not matter who approves).
Free speach is pretty much an absolute. As soon as you place any restrictions whatsoever, you don't have free speach anymore.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday July 15 2015, @03:22PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @05:00PM
What should, or could we do about people that falsely claim slander? What about merely inconvenient speech or speech that appears false but actually is not or worse still speech that can be interpreted as both true and false?
Nevermind that truthful but private knowledge can be just as damaging as any slander.
At the end of the day if you educate your citizens to use their minds then words are just words. If citizens can't understand that then nothing will stop them from being severely harmed and harming others due to speech whether truthful or not. They could not tell the difference or more likely not even care. Thus politics I imagine.
It is all a subjective mess as to what constitutes slander or not. Best to err on the side of free speech. To say otherwise is to be blind ;)
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday July 15 2015, @05:12PM
At the end of the day if you educate your citizens to use their minds then words are just words.
Except... they're not. Otherwise Free Speech has no value.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @11:19AM
Utterly false. People can choose to accept your claims or not. Free speech is useful because it lets you communicate ideas without being punished by the government, enabling you to perhaps convince some people of whatever it is you're arguing for, relieving your stress, saying what you want to say, or some other such thing. It doesn't suddenly because useless if most people actually use their brains when listening to you; that's purely nonsensical.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @07:04PM
Has anyone ever actually done that? Your hypothetical situation is unimportant compared to the real damage caused by slander. The power of words [wikipedia.org] has been known for a long time, anyone trying to claim that words are harmless is arguing against known facts with nothing to support their claim.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @11:21AM
The words are not what is powerful; it is those who respond to the words in certain ways. It is you who doesn't have the facts. You seemingly believe that words have a magical influence over others, but that is nothing but magical thinking.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 15 2015, @07:50PM
"You learn other people's definition of free speech in high school, coming up with your own definition is one the things college is there for."
I take the rather radical stance that slander/libel shouldn't even be a thing. Maybe I'm just young and stupid. But if I make up some bullshit about somebody, and people just accept it as fact without looking it up, I see that as their fault more than mine for not thinking critically about it.
Don't just believe anything you hear. Verify. Look up what the reasoning is.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:11PM
I think defamation (libel and/or slander) is a valid concept that can co-exist with free speech. A person is free to say whatever he or she wants. A person damaged by that speech in a salient and identifiable way (not just "hurt my feelings" -- cost me $x in lost business) is also free to make claim against the speaker and receive compensation if there was a) actual provable defamation (requires falsity), and b) actual provable calculable damages. This is important because the hearers are not always well equipped to evaluate the truth or falsity of the speech, and not because the hearers are sheep or idiots, but because they are separated from the incidents. For example, I have no way to evaluate random statements about Bill Cosby because I know none of those involved and have no association with any of them -- not even remote. If I am misled, it will not be because I'm an idiot, it will be because I just don't know the circumstances (one could say it would be idiotic to form an opinion on such a basis, and I'm partial to that thinking, but at the same time there are many areas of life where we form opinions based on the input of those we see as having special knowledge, and it is important to be able to do this because we can't be experts in all facts, sciences, and arts -- if we could, we'd be gods).
What I object to is a prior determination that some speech should not be made for [being illogical/unreasonable/some other random subjective reason]. FN1 I believe all people should be able to say whatever, and the value of that speech then determined after it has been said, and if there are consequences to that speech, then so be it. To make a pre-speech determination however, is censorship.
FN1: What is or is not logical often depends on the state of knowledge, one's culture, or any other factors. Those most careful take a scientific perspective such as, "our best knowledge to date is Z, thus Y, but if Z proves false eventually, Y will be different." In this sense, what is a logical or reasonable conclusion is not always an absolute.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:24PM
All good points.
I was going to post some cynical wankery but meh. In theory the courts work, and people only get convicted for clear damages. Anyway.
What I say to people IRL these days is, "How can we ever hope to solve our problems if we can't talk about them?"
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:09AM
I think defamation (libel and/or slander) is a valid concept that can co-exist with free speech.
It can't. If the government gets involved and punishes you for your speech (and handing out a verdict in favor of the other party counts as government involvement, even if it's a civil case), then you don't truly have free speech in that case.
It's easier to just admit that you're in favor of some restrictions on free speech.
If I am misled, it will not be because I'm an idiot, it will be because I just don't know the circumstances (one could say it would be idiotic to form an opinion on such a basis, and I'm partial to that thinking, but at the same time there are many areas of life where we form opinions based on the input of those we see as having special knowledge, and it is important to be able to do this because we can't be experts in all facts, sciences, and arts -- if we could, we'd be gods).
When you don't know, just admit that you don't know. Don't be like theists.
A person damaged by that speech in a salient and identifiable way (not just "hurt my feelings" -- cost me $x in lost business)
Speech can't damage you in such a way. Only people who react to the speech in harmful ways can hurt you, but that is their doing and not the speaker's. It's also quite the entitlement complex to assume that you're entitled to other people's money (i.e. "I was making $x a month, but after someone accused me of things I didn't do, I'm making $y a month."); you're not, and that remains so even if they stop giving you their business for bad reasons. You're not actually 'damaged' in any way, because lack of gain can rarely count as harm.
Most people are seemingly not critical enough and are willing to believe too many things that have little to no evidence to back them up. A system that punishes people other than the ones who take the supposedly harmful actions likely just encourages people to become dependent on that system, rather than developing the critical thinking skills necessary to challenge false statements.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 15 2015, @10:05PM
Yep, it was in earnest, but got modded to oblivion.
if you only accept certain speech (based on some more or less subjective criteria), what you are left with is only "tolerated speach" (as in speech that is only allowed because someone approved it) instead of "free speach" (as in you can say whatever the fuck you want, not matter who approves).
This was my question. What subjective criteria? Yes, anyone should be able to say whatever they want, unless it harms someone else (this is your basis liberalism, as much freedom as is compatible with like freedom for all) like yelling "theatre" in crowded fire, or slander and hate speech. (Oh, the word is "speech".) But my point is that saying whatever you like is limited by actually saying something.
I recently read coverage of Southern American white people parading the Confederate flag through various towns and getting a negative reaction. They could not understand how people could assault them with racial slurs! One comment was that it is funny how most "white supremecists" are self-refuting. And this was my point with racism: if some one says racist things, we may just think that they are just saying that they are a racist, which might be a good thing to know. But if we then turn around and say, you're a racist! they should just say "yeah". But what they are saying is not just that they are a racist, they are saying that racism is true, correct, and that we should all be racist! But of course, we can't all be, since some have to be the non-racist inferior class of the SJWs. So really, they are not saying anything, beyond that they are a racist.
So, freedom to say whatever you want, yes. But that includes my freedom to say jpafjlfnl;ganlvnrr hgoairug'p arjg'fgna'lghnl!!!1!! So there! Take that! See? That random mashing of keys (no, seriously, not encrypted, as far as I know) deserves just as much respect and attention as the ravings of a racist. And if you don't agree, well, that is because you are trying to suppress my freedom of speech just because you don't like it. So yes, free speech. My point is that some speech is not even speech, because it is not saying anything.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:17AM
This was my question. What subjective criteria?
The criteria where you're arbitrarily determining that others aren't actually saying anything, when they, in fact, are.
So really, they are not saying anything, beyond that they are a racist.
Whether their speech is logically invalid/incomprehensible or not has nothing to do with whether or not they're saying something.
But that includes my freedom to say jpafjlfnl;ganlvnrr hgoairug'p arjg'fgna'lghnl!!!1!! So there! Take that! See? That random mashing of keys (no, seriously, not encrypted, as far as I know) deserves just as much respect and attention as the ravings of a racist.
Correct.
My point is that some speech is not even speech, because it is not saying anything.
Racists are saying something, and whether it is understandable or not, the pseudo-random letters you typed out were also a communication.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:51AM
So really, they are not saying anything, beyond that they are a racist.
Whether their speech is logically invalid/incomprehensible or not has nothing to do with whether or not they're saying some
Whether I find it incomprehensible may have nothing to do with whether they are saying something (though I like to think I am rather good at spotting nonsense), but if it is logically self-contradictory, then they are not saying something, or anything at all. They may be trying to say something, but we have no way of knowing what that may be.
My point is that some speech is not even speech, because it is not saying anything.
Racists are saying something, and whether it is understandable or not, the pseudo-random letters you typed out were also a communication.
Hmmm, I seem to have committed an unintentional Sokal! (Sokal tried to mimic Post-modernist jargon that he was quite sure was jibberish, and got a paper accepted to a prestigious PoMo journal, an episode known as the "Sokal Affair"). But just because you think it is jibberish does not mean it necessarily is, granted. So since "jpafjlfnl;ganlvnrr hgoairug'p arjg'fgna'lghnl" is meaningful, in spite of my intention for it not to be, could you please tell me what it was that I was saying? Thank for for respecting my right to say it, but it would be helpful to know what is means, because I might want to stop saying it. This brings up that whole "subjective" thing: If you think I said something that I did not mean to say, then it was not what I said, only your interpretation of what I said. In this case, I would correct you by restating what I was trying to say, but since I was trying to say nothing, I can't!! Well played, Anal!
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:11AM
Whether I find it incomprehensible may have nothing to do with whether they are saying something (though I like to think I am rather good at spotting nonsense), but if it is logically self-contradictory, then they are not saying something, or anything at all.
Well, as long as they are speaking, then they are saying something; it just might be nonsensical.
But just because you think it is jibberish does not mean it necessarily is, granted. So since "jpafjlfnl;ganlvnrr hgoairug'p arjg'fgna'lghnl" is meaningful, in spite of my intention for it not to be, could you please tell me what it was that I was saying?
I don't know what it means myself, but that does not mean no one does or will never know. Anyone could make up a meaning for it if they wanted.
If you think I said something that I did not mean to say, then it was not what I said, only your interpretation of what I said.
That's how language generally works: Other people interpret what you say. We have little chance to know what long dead authors or artists intended to mean when they made their works, and yet people come up with their own interpretations anyway. Similarly, and whether you like it or not, people come up with their own interpretations of your communications. You may or may not try to correct them, but those interpretations do not cease to exist.
And I would say the fact that you send data is itself proof that you were trying to say or convey something. Maybe to try to demonstrate some sort of point.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:40AM
And I would say the fact that you send data is itself proof that you were trying to say or convey something. Maybe to try to demonstrate some sort of point.
And what exactly makes you think it was data? It is static, noise, random keypresses, not even pseudo! So for you to think it means something just shows you have "A Beautiful Mind". If I cannot make you understand what it is that I am communicating (and evidently this is the case), then whatever you get out of the exchange is not communication. I am done talking to you, since you refuse to discuss nonsense in a serious manner, and you have failed to disrespect my attempts at gibberish. I am sorely hurt, wounded to the core, and I have no recourse other than to express to you that I cannot understand how you possibly could understand what I intended to make no sense. Unless, of course, you are getting my point! So I just want to say, "I am not a racist, but . . .. " Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge; say no more! say no more!
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:56AM
And what exactly makes you think it was data?
Everything that I've said about interpretations and the potential for language to evolve, even if it evolves only in certain contexts or to certain individuals.
If I cannot make you understand what it is that I am communicating (and evidently this is the case), then whatever you get out of the exchange is not communication.
It's not about either of us as individuals.