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 Runaway1956 on Thursday November 12 2015, @03:00PM
"See, I'm a veteran. This means I was willing to take a bullet for the right of my countrymen to speak their minds."
An observation, Brother. I really don't have much use for Fox Noise, but I can join a discussion on Fox, and I can say some pretty outrageous things, and no one ever threatens to ban me. I've been banned from many MSM discussion sites. Imagine that. The liberal socialist networks that claim to be all about freedom only want to shut me up. They don't care how many years I served my country, they don't care that I might be a veteran, they don't care how many lives I've saved (or taken) in my life. I don't subscribe to their politically correct agendas, so I am personna non grata on those liberal sites.
For this, we served?
This is one of the things I like about Soylent, and /. - no one gets banned for having an unpopular opinion. THIS is freedom of speech. (We all reserve the right to kick Ethanol when he's off his meds though.)
I have nothing but contempt for those who want to silence people they disagree with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @04:10PM
Some discussion venues value "safety from offensive content" more than the free flow of ideas.
In the real world, I can see how this is important for situations where people would be afraid to speak otherwise.
On the internet, I only see this as useful for getting rid of posters that are deliberately trying to disrupt discussion by trolling. I'd rather have more trolling than less ideas but each site has to determine how this affects their signal to noise.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:41PM
They don't care how many years I served my country, they don't care that I might be a veteran, they don't care how many lives I've saved (or taken) in my life.
You're right, "we" don't care because those things have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of your comment. (except in that recent gun thread, I guess)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:07PM
This is the internet. He/She might be a genious 12 year-old girl from Algeria that likes to assume different internet identities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:53PM
> i really don't have much use for Fox Noise, but I can join a discussion on Fox, and I can say some pretty outrageous things, and no one ever threatens to ban me. I've been banned from many MSM discussion sites. Imagine that.
This whining about censorship and conflating it with "the right of my countrymen to speak their minds" is intellectually dishonest. It is like demanding that all stores sell all possible products. Nobody is stopping fox from being a free for all. Free for alls tend to end up with zero signal, but if that's what you want there are plenty of places on the net that will let you do that. There are also other places that do not want to be free for alls, they want to have a specific character and you are required to follow their rules in their house. That's how free speech works.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:05PM
No, it is you who is being dishonest. You may give some lip service to freedom of speech, but you have no problem with seing people punished arbitrarily and capriciously by random moderators who often have their own political agendas.
I suppose that it made sense that you could speak your mind in 1930's Germany, if you were willing to suffer the consequences of a visit from the Brown Shirts later in the evening. You can say whatever you like in China, so long as you're willing to answer to The Party afterward. And, you can post your opinion on most web sites, if you're willing to be banned for doing so.
It's all the same thing.
A forum that is dedicated to one subject in particular - tech, automobiles, motorcycles, dolls, cooking - it is reasonable to ban extraneous subjects that have no bearing on the forum subject. That's perfectly fine. But, posting political stories online, then banning people who voice opinions contrary to the forum operator's views is so obviously WRONG, it cannot be justified.
Seriously, you've got to contort yourself into unhuman shapes to even come close to justifying that kind of censorship. Are you a fascist? A communist? A nazi? A religious zealot? Those are the kinds of poeple who justify censorship.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:52PM
> No, it is you who is being dishonest. You may give some lip service to freedom of speech, but you have no problem with seing people punished arbitrarily and capriciously by random moderators who often have their own political agendas.
Thanks for telling me what I think. You would definitely be the expert on that.
> That's perfectly fine. But, posting political stories online, then banning people who voice opinions contrary to the forum operator's views is so obviously WRONG, it cannot be justified.
Then go somewhere that comports with your worldview. Oh I forgot, those evil moderators are following you around the entire internet censoring you everywhere.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:29PM
There are also other places that do not want to be free for alls, they want to have a specific character and you are required to follow their rules in their house. That's how free speech works.
Funny how "let the free-market decide" and "invisible hand" get thrown by the wayside whenever "SJW"s are perceived to be involved.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @07:43PM
Who is suggesting that the government stop the censorship? From what I see, people are merely criticizing it. Or do you think that freedom of speech and the free market mean being free from criticism?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 12 2015, @09:32PM
"See, I'm a veteran. This means I was willing to take a bullet for the right of my countrymen to speak their minds."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @02:01PM
I'm not seeing how that is advocating that the government stop this particular censorship. Maybe it simply means that he values freedom of speech highly.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:03PM
but I can join a discussion on Fox, and I can say some pretty outrageous things, and no one ever threatens to ban me.
Yeah, 'cause shutting down the entire comments section [newshounds.us] is so much better!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:13PM
Interesting. Newshounds seems to imply that Fox shouldn't have put news stories online that might be controversial. So - are you pointing out that Fox censored the comments on one especially controversial story, or are you instead pointing out that Newshounds wants to censor Fox?
And that line of thought leads me to ask, how do we end racism in this nation? If you punish the white man, will racism end? If controversy is silenced, will racism end? Or - is it more likely that some open, loud, discordant controversy will end racism?
I choose the discordance. Let the rabid racist beat each other to death, both the blacks and the whites. We'll be better off without them - both the blacks and the whites. Once they've killed each other off, then all that's left are more moderate middle grounders, who can reach some kind of agreement with each other.
We've been doing it all wrong for centuries now. Don't silence anyone - encourage every one to run at the mouth.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:26PM
So - are you pointing out that Fox censored the comments
Yes, I am pointing out that you are completely wrong about Fox not censoring.
And that line of thought leads me to ask: You are aware that trying to move the goalposts like that implies that you know you're wrong?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:34PM
Uhhhhh - discussions tend to evolve, ya know? A discussion that leads nowhere isn't much of a discussion. I've pointed out that Fox censors far less than MSM. You showed me that Fox did censor a story. I've moved no goalposts. I'm still asking.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @07:19PM
> I've pointed out that Fox censors far less than MSM.
Uh no. You claimed something totally nebulous "MSM" versus one named company. Totally unprovable assertion. Face with counter-evidence you retreated into further generics.
Besides Fox is fucking mainstream. The number one news channel and they aren't part of the MSM?
All you've done is flown the flag of your culture affiliation in a sort of "no true scotsman" fallacy.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 12 2015, @07:37PM
Whatever. If Fox is mainstream, it is right of center mainstream, while almost all of the rest of mainstream is left to far left. There really is nothing "nebulous" about US mainstream media. There are the Turner affiliated networks, and the Hearst affiliated networks, and finally, there is Fox. Hearst and Turner have banned me so many times, I've lost count.
If you think I'm wrong, just install the request policy addon for Firefox. Hit any and all of the mainstream media you care to check. CNN, for instance, pulls half of their news off of Turner servers. Maybe more than half. Few CNN pages load unless you allow turner dot com and ugdturner dot com.
We aren't discussing some long list of 90 corporations, after all.
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 [businessinsider.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @01:57AM
> Whatever.
Lol. The ultimate tacit admission of getting it wrong but being too prideful to own it like a man. Who knew runaway had the maturity of a 12 year old girl?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @01:44AM
As a veteran, libertarian, and as a commenter that has been reading your posts here for a long time I have to say are you sure they didn't ban you cause you were acting trolly? You at times give off a flambait/troll aura.
Maybe, just maybe, if you were a little bit calmer and tried to speak to your audience instead of yelling at them you might change a few of their minds.
For example:
-Don't call the people there liberal socialists. Everyone knows that is meant as an insult. When you insult someone you turn their ears off. Do you listen with an open mind if someone calls you a tea bagger? I doubt it.
-When you have facts behind your case, provide citations. And no that does not mean brietbart or limbaugh. You have to find sources that will speak to your audience. Find citations on those same mainstream sites you rail against. I know it sucks but citing brietbart will turn ears off as well.
-Don't tell people how they think. You don't know how they think with any certainty. You may be partially right, but there are nuances to how they feel about things, and things that have shaped their lives. Try to speak to them on their terms not not yours.
-Actually try to understand what they are saying, sure sometimes people on both sides of the political spectrum are batshit insane. Even if you are correct that they are batshit, calling them batshit will cause the others to turn their ears off. If you cannot figure out why someone thinks something ask them to explain it. Little known fact: asking for something makes someone like you more. Ask for their thoughts and then provide well reasoned calm citeable facts to show why you disagree.
I mean honestly I have read your comments and this is what I see in my minds eye with some of them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNTApC0T9OA [youtube.com]
I used to be a liberal but calm reasonable discussions with others have shaped my perceptions.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday November 13 2015, @01:56PM
As a veteran, libertarian, and as a commenter that has been reading your posts here for a long time I have to say are you sure they didn't ban you cause you were acting trolly?
Sounds like they banned him because they are oversensitive. I don't care how trolly or inflammatory his comments might have been. Don't pretend that your site respects free speech when you sit there and ban people for stating things in a way that you don't like; be honest and upfront about your censorship. And no, vaguely-worded rules against causing "offense" and other such things are not really sufficient, because they could apply to literally anything. Regardless of the tone, I don't think it was worthy of a ban. Those sites are total garbage.
-Don't call the people there liberal socialists. Everyone knows that is meant as an insult. When you insult someone you turn their ears off. Do you listen with an open mind if someone calls you a tea bagger? I doubt it.
If their argument has merit, what they call you is irrelevant.
Even if you are correct that they are batshit, calling them batshit will cause the others to turn their ears off.
Sounds like those people who would "turn their ears off" don't care much about reality, then. At least not if it's stated in a way they don't like. Who cares if they don't listen? As far as I'm concerned, this is a good thing, because you're able to spot shallow morons more quickly.