That's a bit Orwellian, since it's outright censorship. Might be better to make it subtler, like allowing the post but replacing the the word "reddit" with "fnord".
That's insane, I had no idea that Reddit had gone that far. It's pretty crazy that just registering agreement with an idea is enough to be censored. It's like wrongthink from 1984.
You're posting on a website that routinely removes posts and comments. It's definitely authoritarian, but forum sites are not democracies.
There is an argument that a subreddit could be out of line with the site, and not hosted. Granted it would be a bit of a stretch given the kind of content on reddit. I don't think r/antiwork crosses any line, but it's really up to reddit
Or really, any censorship applied to property by anyone other than the property owner. Reddit (specifically, the physical servers running the site) is private property, so any rules Reddit makes (or allows the moderators of its subreddits to make) probably won't be considered objectionable censorship. If the government, or any external entity, forcefully censored Reddit, that would likely be considered objectionable censorship. Compare it to the government forcefully preventing a physical newspaper from publishing certain things, versus the editor of a newspaper choosing which articles to publish.
To be fair, is the problem with reddit not mostly subreddit moderators? Obviously reddit admins are guilty as well with modifying the algorithm to hide certain types of speech, but it seems to me the biggest problem is moderators.
For the time being, I think a widespread movement to create a well-known convention of /r/{subreddit}_uncensored would help things immensely.
I don't think Reddit should be able to censor lawful content and also claim protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. If they want to police lawful content that is fine but then they are no longer an open platform and they should forfeit their Section 230 protections. I dislike the ability for online platforms to have their cake of protection against lawsuits and also eat their cake of policing lawful content they don't like.
The idea that this is censorship is laughable. Reddit fails whenever the wind blows too hard. It isn't too much of a stretch to think one of the most anticipated presidential debates collapsed Reddit.
But there is something to be said about having the censor cabal out in the open for everyone to see. Compare that with Facebook or Twitter or Instagram, where there is no record of who is determining what is and isn't ok to say.
He's making it an issue of censorship, when the whole reason for this is the child pornography on the website to which this is juxtaposed. The admins have chosen to use a wide net in this case, presumably because they don't have the resources to fine-comb subreddits to determine whether they meet the criteria for child pornography.
The concept of censorship and impediment of free speech on a privately held site whose owners are free to do as they please without curbing the constitutional fifth-amendment right of their users is also to blow this completely out of proportions and miss the point entirely.
The thing is that as a user I want some control over what I see. I do not want NSFW content in my feed, or to accidentally see things that are illegal/NSFL. I want to avoid the worse of the troll and hatey people. Reddit does not have freedom of speech, it has admin controlled thiefdoms. This works well, but if a particular community jepardises the whole it should go elsewhere.
reply