SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Reddit will allow users to upload NSFW images from desktop:
Reddit announced Thursday that it will now allow users to upload NSFW images from desktops in adult communities. The feature was already available on the social network's mobile app.
[...] "This now gives us feature parity with our mobile apps, which (as you know) already has this functionality. You must set your community to 18+ if your community's content will primarily be not safe for work (NSFW)," the company said.
Reddit's announcement comes days after Imgur said that the image hosting platform was banning explicit photos from May 15. At that time, the company said that explicit content formed a risk to Imgur's "community and its business". Banning this type of content would "protect the future of the Imgur community."
Many of Reddit's communities rely on Imgur's hosting services. However, the social network allowing native NSFW uploads through desktop might be the most logical solution going forward.
Image hosting is not the only hurdle for NSFW communities. Last month, when Reddit announced that it will start charging for its API, the company also said that it will limit access to mature content available through its API. This would directly impact the experience on third-party Reddit apps. In yesterday's announcement about desktop upload for NSFW images, a Reddit staff members said that the company is discussing how to navigate this situation.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 20, @03:50PM (14 children)
hyper-censored ultraleftist groupthink
To the point where, I, a moderate Democrat wanted to buy a rebel flag simply because reddit comes down so hard on anybody who rocks one. That was when I realized it was a toxic site and I deleted my account. I haven't missed it one bit.
I think there are basically two kinds of people: those who join the hive mind, and those who push back; but when the hive is strong, both kinds of reaction are unhealthy.
I think a lot of people may not realize this, and it could partially explain the increased polarization in society.
Free speech means we can't ban it, not without causing vastly more problems. I think the better course is to do what we can to make people aware of how social media affects our psyches, and advocate strategies to help us cope--limit time, recognize toxic patterns in yourself and others, and withdraw if necessary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 20, @11:39PM
One of the very best comments ever.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday May 21, @01:48AM (2 children)
It's been a while since I've visited Reddit, do they sell shit now or something?
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1) by Coligny on Sunday May 21, @02:19AM (1 child)
Onlyfan sluts posting “nobody will care anyway but here is a video of me fist fucking my twin sister on the hood of our dad C3 Corvette” with a discount code for their archive including their dad porking their mom 20 years ago the day they were conceived on the backseat of the same corvette
(Score: 3, Touché) by Tork on Sunday May 21, @02:26AM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 3, Insightful) by helel on Sunday May 21, @02:27AM (6 children)
If a private company refusing to host a hate symbol make you want to purchase that symbol you may not be as moderate as you think.
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 21, @04:11AM (5 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America#Controversy [wikipedia.org]
It's about half and half or 60/40 whether or not We the People agree with your classification of Confederate flags as a hate symbol. If you want to discard arguments in favor of keeping these flags around and write off an entire 40% of the country as a bunch of racists, you wouldn't be the first to do so.
Private companies can sort of do what they want, but don't be surprised when two parallel economies and internets form because of the deep polarization of literally everything. Yay, progress.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by helel on Sunday May 21, @05:03AM (4 children)
The flag was literally created to defend the institution of race based slavery. Given this unquestionable fact we can then ask "why might someone claim it is not racist?"
The first obvious answer would be that they are ignorant of the symbols history. Similar to a child accidentally sketching a Swastika on some graph paper someone might just think the flag looks cool and not realize what it was created to represent.
Alternatively someone might feel like the meaning of the symbol has changed over time. Sure, it started out a horrific racist symbol but it now stands for something different. What that different thing is is a somewhat questionable concept. "I'm proud my southern grandfather risked his life defending the ability of white people to own black people as property" is basically just being racist with extra steps, as they say.
Finally someone might be racist, think the slavery flag really is racists, and therefore lie about it. Racists know, as everybody does, that their views are socially frowned upon and so it's in their best interest to claim the flag they fly is not racist even thought the fact that it is is the very reason they fly it!
So the question becomes, how many of that 40% fall into each group? Certainly the size of the first group cannot be underestimated. Schools in this country didn't exactly bend over backwards to teach about the causes of the civil war before red states started outlawing the subject entirely.
The second group? It's hard to measure. After all this is the one everyone in the third group will claim to belong to.
So I guess the question is, what percentage of Americans are out and out racists? Such people obviously exist and if they make up, say, 10% of the population then the real number of people that think the pro-slavery flag is not racist is more like a third of Americans. If there are more seriously racist people that number falls further. It's not hard to imagine that the real number of people who think it's not a racists symbol is more like 1 in 5 although that's pure speculation.
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Monday May 22, @08:27AM (3 children)
There's also another view (there's probably as many views as people who care to have the idea fleetingly cross their minds).
For naïve people who have not grown up in the decidedly odd culture of the USA, they may just associate the Confederate flag with a TV programme of their childhood: the The Dukes of Hazzard [wikipedia.org], which is a cutesy pastiche of rural southern USA, and the flag is associated with comic-book style rebellion. These days, the programme would be regarded as horrifically non-politically correct.
But in these days of respecting other people's (especially minority's) opinions and feelings, your generally positive view of the symbol, driven by your personal experience is equally valid as someone else's. Of course, someone could play the "I'm more oppressed than you are" game, together with asserting that you are playing 'privilege' card you didn't know you had.
Of course, you may cry that someone who has such a wrong view of the symbol needs to be (re-)educated so they understand its true horror: but to do so tramples over their child-like innocence, which is surely worth preserving. Symbols can have multiple meanings: the swastika use by Nazi Germany was earlier used as a Hindu symbol symbolising the sun, prosperity, and good luck. The symbol is not the thing. A symbol can have multiple interpretations, equally valid or invalid, and to delete a symbol does not delete the thing.
In another world, the car in the Dukes of Hazzard might have been called the General Rommel rather than the General Lee, and have a Nazi flag on its roof rather than a Confederate flag; and play the first 12 notes of the Horst Wessel song rather than Dixie - although I'm not sure that it would be easy to recast Nazism as good ol' American 'rebellion against authority'.
(Score: 2) by helel on Monday May 22, @01:19PM (2 children)
That is literally my "option 1" - They are ignorant of its history.
As for comparisons to the swastika, as you point out the swastika had many meanings before before it became a hate symbol and still has non-hate uses in the world today. The pro slavery flag, not so much.
Honestly your whole post feels a little too much like someone saying "I should be allowed to do blackface because minstrel shows were fun light hearted comedy when I was a kid."
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Monday May 22, @06:24PM (1 child)
Banning symbols lets the people using that symbol know that they are getting to you.
The appropriate response is to ignore the use.
The next best response is to point and laugh.
Getting huffily offended is the absolute worst thing you can do.
You can control your own response. Ultimately, you can't control other people. The whole point about using the symbols is to get a reaction.
As for minstrel shows, I have always thought they were boringly dire, and if everyone had my level of interest, they would have been consigned to the dustbin of history decades ago. Lack of interest is a fine way for controversial things to die out.
(Score: 2) by helel on Tuesday May 23, @12:23AM
Well, I don't disagree with you there. I certainly don't go harassing people for their flags even if I silently judge them.
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 21, @07:23AM
"The lefties were so mean I reversed my principles..." is a weird claim to throw Informative mod points at. You being brittle is not, if you'll pardon the expression, a flex.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by TheReaperD on Sunday May 21, @10:06AM (1 child)
One of the big things we need to start doing, this applies for the US, Europe, everywhere, really. We need to stop treating social media algorithms as a capitalist untouchable 3rd rail and start heavily regulate them. Make sure they're not pushing polarizing extremist content, terrorist content (both ISIS and white nationalists, aka vanilla ISIS) and shut down any QAnon, Anti-Vax, and anti-climate change voodoo ideologies. No one is willing to acknowledge that the algorithms of these social media sites are the reason for such an outbreak of these crazies. Cults can't find members if their voice can't be heard. I used to be a free speech abolitionist, but I've long learned that's a path to a society I don't want to live in. I want women and minorities to feel safe online and not have to listen to hate speech. Is that so much to ask for?
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 5, Interesting) by turgid on Sunday May 21, @06:03PM
You make some very good points. The free speech absolutists say that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" and the idea is that all ideas, no matter how abhorrent, should be aired in public so that they can be considered and countered.
That's a laudable goal, and I value my free speech, such as it is in the UK.
We have faced a serious issue in the last decade or so where online public communications and discussions have been swamped with unsettling and unsavoury increasingly politically extreme arguments, some advocating separatism, genocide, war, misogyny, racism and all sorts of abhorrent things that we thought we had largely dealt with in the last century.
My grandparents' generation fought a rather nasty world war for their survival and for freedom, free speech, racial harmony, and humanist values.
Living memory has largely faded now. History is not well taught. Critical thinking skills are apparently in short supply. We have XBox, Facebook and TikTok.
I like to think I do my bit, standing up to the Alt-Wrong whenever I can, using my disinfectant on their inane and inhuman ramblings, history denial and hatred. The thing is, there are a lot of them. We know for a fact that certain groups, whether they be political parties, lobbying groups, governments and so on, pay people to troll for the Alt-Wrong. We (in the UK) have an Alt-Wrong sympathetic and apologist media (the Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Telegraph, BBC News, GB News - run at a loss by the Alt-Wrong, and many others). The head of the BBC recently had to stand down for a corruption scandal where he lent a large sum of money to the former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnston.
There's big money and big bigotry behind it. They think we've forgotten the 20th century. I haven't. Many people now are too young to know much about it (they haven't heard of East Berlin or how it got to be). They haven't heard of Franco or Mussolini and they don't know how Hitler came to power or what propaganda the German National Socialists got elected on.
The National Conservatism movement worries me greatly. Someone with the time needs to to a critique and a comparison with certain historical political movements. A certain Mr Farage has recently announced that his precious Brexit has "failed." He's blaming all sorts of people, including politicians for being too left wing, despite reality.
These vested interest have the upper hand because they have huge resources on their side. They can flood the public discourse with whatever poison they choose and we are effectively powerless. The pen is mightier than the sword, but when you are outnumbered by orders of magnitude of mercenaries, you don't stand a chance.
I'm not advocating censorship or the curtailing of free speech. That goes against my instincts and my thoughts. However, we the ordinary people, need to organise ourselves better. We have been divided and we are being ruled. We need to come together in the spirit of peace, friendship and cooperation to defeat the dark forces with the peaceful power of words.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].