Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Thursday November 12 2015, @10:11AM   Printer-friendly
from the shiny-new-ban-hammer dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:53PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:53PM (#262252)

    > 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

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:05PM (#262264) Homepage Journal

    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.

    --
    Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:52PM (#262289)

      > 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

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:29PM (#262275) Journal

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @07:43PM (#262318)

      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

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday November 12 2015, @09:32PM (#262373) Journal

        "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

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @02:01PM (#262635)

          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.