Thank you SO much! I had no idea that my work on SoylentNews had such a wide-ranging impact on so many people! Reading the comments to my resignation — This is Difficult in So Many Ways; I Must Resign from SoylentNews — brought me alternately to tears of joy and roars of laughter.
That said, the reality is that others have arguably played a larger role in making SoylentNews into the success that it is today. A few names that readily come to mind: NCommander (UID 2!), paulej72, TheMightyBuzzard, and LaminatorX (our first Editor-in-Chief). There are so many more!
As much as I appreciate the kind words, it would mean so much more to me to see these well-wishes turned into subscriptions to SoylentNews! This idea came to me when I received a gift subscription to the site. (Thanks drussell!) It costs roughly $7,000 per year to run this site — primarily web hosting fees. (Nobody has ever been paid anything for their work on this site!)
We have raised about $1,100 so far this year. Our goal for June 30th is only about $2,400 away (and for the year is only about $5,900 away). That is net to us after processing fees. It's a BIG stretch, but I have faith... let's see what this community can do!
[Update: Revised paulj72 to paulej72. - Fnord]
The U.S. Constitution protects speech, but does not require private entities to provide a platform. U.S. residents are free to set up a platform to host their own speech, and that of like-minded individuals. If SoylentNews does not meet your needs/wants, then you are free to set up a service/platform more suited to your wants/needs. That freedom is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, not SoylentNews editors.
True, but then the site should update the code of conduct instead of pretending to be 100% free speech. Hypocrisy is ugly, and Runaway should be mod banned for a year, but he gets away with bad behavior for all the wrong reasons. There is a reason we have laws and don't leave everything up to a judge's opinion, but alt-right stuff has always had more support around here. Can't forget the years of racist shitposting where staff said "free speech" and wouldn't ban obvious trolls ruining discussions, but now some user complaining about the site and supposed injustice gets the banhammer and spam mods? Total load of shit no matter how annoying you find ari's whining. No surprise a right leaning site would be full of hypocrites.
Fuck free speech, do you know what 'banned' means?
WTF is up with all the Spam mods?
The site does not pretend to be 100% free speech.
We are a volunteer-powered news aggregation site that deliver articles about technology, science, and general interest. We also host public discussion and utilize a powerful comment moderation system. This is an open-source, community-driven project and evolves based on the will of the community.We've incorporated as a Delaware Public Benefit Corporation (similar to a non-profit) as we feel our mission to provide a platform for news dissemination and relevant discussion is not only essential for mankind, but also a legal right (i.e. freedom of press, freedom of speech) at least in the USA, and these are liberties which we aim to protect.Now, go forth and submit stories, comment, moderate, and be free!
We are a volunteer-powered news aggregation site that deliver articles about technology, science, and general interest. We also host public discussion and utilize a powerful comment moderation system. This is an open-source, community-driven project and evolves based on the will of the community.
We've incorporated as a Delaware Public Benefit Corporation (similar to a non-profit) as we feel our mission to provide a platform for news dissemination and relevant discussion is not only essential for mankind, but also a legal right (i.e. freedom of press, freedom of speech) at least in the USA, and these are liberties which we aim to protect.
Now, go forth and submit stories, comment, moderate, and be free!
From: https://soylentnews.org/about.pl [soylentnews.org]
So:(1)..mission to provide a platform for news dissemination and relevant discussion.(2) providing a platform is "...a legal right, [...] at least in the USA"(3) aim to protect the liberties "freedom of press, freedom of speech"
Given the platform is for relevant discussion, somebody, somewhere is making a judgement about what is, or is not, relevant. Ultimately, it is the owners, who delegate in practice to editors/moderators.
Note that it does not say the platform is for "freedom of speech", merely that it is taking advantage of the liberty of "freedom of speech" to provide a platform. These are not the same.
Furthermore, SoylentNews "evolves based on the will of the community", and it appears that will does not include hosting certain content.
It is even perfectly possible to protect freedom of speech on a platform which does not itself allow full freedom of speech. To give a made up example: assume the government bans all discussion of toothbrushing. Obviously the site can't publish details of toothbrushing, but can host a discussion on the rights and wrongs of the ban, and espouse a position in favour of toothbrushing. In the same way, not having complete freedom of speech does not prevent you from discussing freedom of speech, and even holding a position where you promote freedom of speech as beneficial. Lack of complete freedom of speech simply means there are some topics and behaviours that are not allowed by the people who have control of the site. It is not a big deal. If you want to talk about banned topics, do so in your local market square or other public forum, or on your own platform. In the USA, your right to do so is guaranteed by the constitution. SoylentNews is not owned 'by the people', it is private, and the owners get to decide what speech is, or is not allowed.
Never thought I would see a Soylentil defending "cancel" culture using the "private platform" argument. The site is "Breaking Bad".
"Cancel culture" is not a new thing; it's been around a LONG time. The only thing new is the usage of that term by butthurt conservatives who don't like it when a weapon they have used numerous times in the past is now being used against them.
The 1st Amendment says that your right to speak cannot be inhibited by the government. It does not say you have the right to an audience. It also does not say you are protected from the consequences of your speech. It does not force private entities to display or repeat your speech.
If you don't like SoylentNews' moderation, there's no one stopping you from making your own forum.
Well that's the first time I've ever been accused of not being loud enough!
I get what you're saying, but SoylentNews is a bit freer than most. The two big issues that comes to mind are Aristarchus and whomever is pushing the literal spam junk. I seem to recall something about it possibly being linked to Aristarchus, in which case good riddance. Seriously, this demotivational poster quote is quite applicable.
It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning for others.
That site made surviving work much easier. You have to laugh, sometimes.