SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a move that isn't particularly surprising given their lack of support for intellectual diversity to date, Reddit has introduced outright bans to replace its shadow banning policy.
Reddit has introduced an "Account Suspension" feature that will replace Shadowbanning for non-spammers, though previously shadowbanned accounts are not going to be automatically unbanned.
A post on July 28, 2015 by Reddit admin /u/krispykrackers explains the basics of Shadowbanning, a tool initially created to counteract spammers by hiding their content without letting them know their account had been shadowbanned. However, this was Reddit's only tool for an account-wide ban, and it has since been used on people other than spammers as well.
Account Suspension will be more straightforward and transparent than a Shadowban. An F.A.Q. page (sic) linked in the announcement post states that only Reddit administrators will be able to apply suspensions, which can be temporary or permanent. Permanent suspensions will result in a message about the account's status being added to that account's userpage.
See, I'm a veteran. This means I was willing to take a bullet for the right of my countrymen to speak their minds. On this at least I have not mellowed as I've aged. My personal line in the sand is that we will never site ban for anything but over-the-top spamming or gross/repeated illegal activity while I am on staff. See my journal if you feel the need for that last statement to be expounded upon.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Thursday November 12 2015, @02:58PM
I was always an advocate of no moderation or a light touch to moderation until I got involved in a subject specific discussion forum where lots of people wanted to show up and detract from the purpose of the site by contradicting the main subject matter we were discussing. These people really had no business being on the site because they weren't there for our purpose; they were there for their own. The moderation seemed heavy to me at first until I realized what was going on - we who were there for the stated purpose of the site needed such people to be shown the door or we'd be overrun by disrupters.
I don't think SN would function well with this kind of policy. I have no idea about reddit; I don't even have an account there.
As for the right of people to speak their mind: of course everybody has the right to speak their mind, but not at the expense of others. If it costs $5 to put up a website and I pay it, then I have the right to speak my mind on that website and set policy for who can say what there. I decide what niche I'm trying to serve and what the purpose of the site is, and if someone doesn't like it and I show them the door I haven't denied them any rights - they have the right to speak their mind, but not the right to speak their mind at my expense, using my property and resources. Freedom of speech is rooted in freedom of the press - and presses are cheaper than ever today!
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 12 2015, @03:07PM
The legality of their censorship is not in question, as far as I know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:49PM
I fully appreciate the need to moderate discussions, however I feel a better method would be to mark posts as offtopic/troll like we do here. Once modded the comment becomes "hidden", but anyone can choose to display the hidden comments. That way there is no real censorship, just an annoying wall to jump over. Also, transparency can really help engender trust. When people can see for themselves why some content was downmodded, then they will have more (or less) trust in the moderators.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:56PM
I'm pretty sure we all think that our style of moderation is better, that's why we're here.
Seriously, who gives a crap how Reddit moderates? Frankly, if they make is sucky enough maybe we'll get some of their users that value that sort of thing.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:01PM
Seriously, who gives a crap how Reddit moderates?
Well, it's somewhat interesting to talk about, at least for a little while, at least for me. It's their site to do as they wish, though. Most of the people over here want to be able to say whatever, and most of us feel the site is better for it.
When I've taken a look at reddit they seem to have lots of subforums run by users, so I'm thinking each of those subforums might be better if the ones running it could decide on their own moderation policy. Then if you don't like it, you can go start another. That's how newsgroups worked back in the day, and I thought usenet was the better for it.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Sir Finkus on Thursday November 12 2015, @09:15PM
Seriously, who gives a crap how Reddit moderates? Frankly, if they make is sucky enough maybe we'll get some of their users that value that sort of thing.
I care in the sense that it's a large and influential site. The way it's set up and the way most of the subs are moderated encourage a groupthink mentality, while also giving the illusion of free speech. People might think they're getting the whole story when they aren't.
It's rather easy to fall into a worldview when all the content you see conforms to that worldview. I actually suspect a lot of the problems college students seem to be having are a result of how most of our online social interactions are curated and censored. Online, it's super easy to wall yourself off from alternative viewpoints. In real life it takes a lot of effort. You can't just thumb down or block somebody who shows up at your protest that disagrees with you.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:59PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings