"There is a website I can't link that is taking money to crowdfund doxxing efforts. After the admins banned that domain, the mods on /r/altright continued to manually approve submissions to that site and added them as sticky/announcement posts. My guess is that is the reasoning behind the ban."
So they got banned for repeatedly and intentionally, with moderator support, circumventing Reddit's rules -- not for 'suppression of free speech' or anything like that. I'm sure the admins were glad to be rid of them, but, they really brought it on themselves.
What's the actual incident? Does anybody have details?
Wesearchr was banned from twitter for looking for information about the guy who sucker-punched Richard Spencer live on video. Is this ban for the same incident?
This seems a little different from how I normally use the term "doxxing", which is posting real-life information about a person who would prefer to remain anonymous. I mean, I'm sure the guy who assaulted Spencer would prefer to remain anonymous, but others have good reason to oppose that.
This now the default social media censorship tactic. Apply the TOS harshly to your opponents and loosely to your allies. When an Alt Right sub doxxes people, they get banned; when an SJW sub doxxes people, they get ignored.
Disagreed. The name "altright" itself is now banned. You can no longer make a subreddit named that so effectively, the speech and beliefs are now banned under the guise of TOS violation. Usually when moderators misbehave they tend to trade out moderators, they made a special exception to make sure the subreddit isn't remade. They also tend to selectively enforce these rules on subreddits that dont align with their own political views.
You can always start one that isnt called "altright" but you're less likely to get eyes on it which may be the entire point.
They're well within their rights to ban whomever they want, but they should be upfront about deleting subreddits that dont align with them politically rather than this game they're playing finding some TOS reason to remove an entire topic from the site. It doesn't make sense otherwise to punish everyone for the actions of a few.
/r/altright was banned for doxing. An example can be found on imgur http://imgur.com/a/pZ8yN where you can see not only doxing, but crowd funding to support doxing of an individual they disagreed with.
I would disagree with somebody sucker-punching a community member in the face. If there are no other targets this seems entirely legitimate.
The ban also seems slightly prejudicial, because on the other side there is /r/antifa where people are bragging[1] about the assault which /r/altright was trying to solve with this bounty.
Granted, /r/antifa seems to be mostly dissent against this stuff, so it wouldn't be a subreddit shutdown.
I think that assaulting people you disagree with is a far more serious charge than posting a reward for information which leads to the arrest of a criminal. The latter is something befitting of a police agency.
Note that they were banned for doxxing, not for intolerance or hatred.
Generally I strongly favor free speech and believe the answer to 'bad' speech is more speech. However, there always are limits such as slander, harmful deception (yelling 'fire' in a crowd), provocation to crime ('assault the man in the front row!'), and more. I think there may be a way to clearly and justly draw a line for white supremacist and other hate speech, if and when we want to do it.
Tolerate all but intolerance itself.
There is some theoretical support:
* Think of tolerance as a social contract: I tolerate you if you tolerate me; or, everyone tolerates you if you tolerate everyone. If you break that contract then you have no claim on everyone else's toleration.
* Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.[0]
On the other hand, the always incredible Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes some good arguments against it, especially that humanity will abuse this new authority.[1] Partly for that reason and partly to err on the side of individual liberty, I would apply this rule only when there is a practical necessity. One requirement would be that the intolerant group poses a threat. For example, a group of intolerant Jainists in Los Angeles isn't a threat - they are too few to threaten anyone in that environment. In a tiny town where they are the majority, or in a locked room with one Confucian about whom they are saying intolerant things, it would be a threat.
But this all is my personal analysis; I'd be interested in some established standards such as workplace law, neo-Nazi speech in Germany, etc.
six weeks ago I would have regarded the idea of doing this as inimical to the principles of free discourse and debate that I feel are fundamental to democracy and indeed to small-l liberal civilization in general.
now I find myself wondering whether my principles are being contaminated by the immense personal anger I feel, or whether perhaps my principles weren't as rationally derived as I had previously believed.
Living in an open society does not mean tolerating those who aim to end the open society. The altright, as a rewarming of white nationalism, which is a rewarming of Nazism, seems to not be such a huge fan of our open society.
six weeks ago I would have regarded the idea of doing this as inimical to the principles of free discourse and debate that I feel are fundamental to democracy and indeed to small-l liberal civilization in general
altright was doxxing, which is against the ToS. Doxxing, regardless of who, is generally a bad idea. For background, see the reddit Boston bomber debacle. You're going to get it wrong and end up harassing or harming innocent people.
no, shame on those who dox with malicious intent, and they got what they deserved for violating the T&C of Reddit, but still deserve a kick in the short and curly's for doxing. Alt Right is a turd blossoming community filled with misinformed hateful people of little merit, who have incredibly fragile egos.
The 1st Amendment of the United States applies to Congress, not everything. Even in that context, freedom of speech has limits (e.g. libel, slander, child pornography, sexual harassment, etc.).
this seems like a pretty standard enforcement of their policy - since real-life information was being shared on that community for the purposes of targeted harassment, banning has always been their primary recourse
Who honestly gives a shit? Not me. There are a veritable army of unproductive losers who spend all their time on the Internet. Nearly every occasion where I've seen people complain about "censorship" from a website, it's unproductive drivel from these people.
Good riddance, I say. When productive people don't like their speech being suppressed they create lobste.rs. But these people aren't productive at all. They're useless wastrels, for whom the psychological kick of receiving an upvote from their feeble-minded brethren is sufficient to drag them through the day.
I will continue to use reddit for /r/rust and whatnot and it will be good.
Normally, I wouldn't even enter this conversation but there's this trend where people assume that these worthless fools are the majority simply because they spend every waking hour whining about some thing or the other. And then people act as if they must be placated. When really they should just go away.
[+] [-] ajkjk|9 years ago|reply
"There is a website I can't link that is taking money to crowdfund doxxing efforts. After the admins banned that domain, the mods on /r/altright continued to manually approve submissions to that site and added them as sticky/announcement posts. My guess is that is the reasoning behind the ban."
So they got banned for repeatedly and intentionally, with moderator support, circumventing Reddit's rules -- not for 'suppression of free speech' or anything like that. I'm sure the admins were glad to be rid of them, but, they really brought it on themselves.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] askljkdjklsj|9 years ago|reply
Wesearchr was banned from twitter for looking for information about the guy who sucker-punched Richard Spencer live on video. Is this ban for the same incident?
This seems a little different from how I normally use the term "doxxing", which is posting real-life information about a person who would prefer to remain anonymous. I mean, I'm sure the guy who assaulted Spencer would prefer to remain anonymous, but others have good reason to oppose that.
[+] [-] diego|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] briholt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sergiotapia|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gottam|9 years ago|reply
You can always start one that isnt called "altright" but you're less likely to get eyes on it which may be the entire point.
They're well within their rights to ban whomever they want, but they should be upfront about deleting subreddits that dont align with them politically rather than this game they're playing finding some TOS reason to remove an entire topic from the site. It doesn't make sense otherwise to punish everyone for the actions of a few.
[+] [-] Dobbs|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gozur88|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] microcolonel|9 years ago|reply
The ban also seems slightly prejudicial, because on the other side there is /r/antifa where people are bragging[1] about the assault which /r/altright was trying to solve with this bounty. Granted, /r/antifa seems to be mostly dissent against this stuff, so it wouldn't be a subreddit shutdown.
I think that assaulting people you disagree with is a far more serious charge than posting a reward for information which leads to the arrest of a criminal. The latter is something befitting of a police agency.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/antifa/comments/5r5rlp/
[+] [-] marricks|9 years ago|reply
Sure, reddit started as a sort of "libertarian dream" but it's pretty clear at this point that some groups choose to abuse that.
[+] [-] stefantalpalaru|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] singold|9 years ago|reply
Edit: now i've read the comment by 'ajkjk and that makes more sense
[+] [-] hackuser|9 years ago|reply
Generally I strongly favor free speech and believe the answer to 'bad' speech is more speech. However, there always are limits such as slander, harmful deception (yelling 'fire' in a crowd), provocation to crime ('assault the man in the front row!'), and more. I think there may be a way to clearly and justly draw a line for white supremacist and other hate speech, if and when we want to do it.
Tolerate all but intolerance itself.
There is some theoretical support:
* Think of tolerance as a social contract: I tolerate you if you tolerate me; or, everyone tolerates you if you tolerate everyone. If you break that contract then you have no claim on everyone else's toleration.
* Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.[0]
On the other hand, the always incredible Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes some good arguments against it, especially that humanity will abuse this new authority.[1] Partly for that reason and partly to err on the side of individual liberty, I would apply this rule only when there is a practical necessity. One requirement would be that the intolerant group poses a threat. For example, a group of intolerant Jainists in Los Angeles isn't a threat - they are too few to threaten anyone in that environment. In a tiny town where they are the majority, or in a locked room with one Confucian about whom they are saying intolerant things, it would be a threat.
But this all is my personal analysis; I'd be interested in some established standards such as workplace law, neo-Nazi speech in Germany, etc.
----
[0] I can't find an authoritative source or discussion, but Wikipedia covers it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/ - Search the page for "paradox of drawing the limits"
[+] [-] baudolino|9 years ago|reply
now I find myself wondering whether my principles are being contaminated by the immense personal anger I feel, or whether perhaps my principles weren't as rationally derived as I had previously believed.
[+] [-] epistasis|9 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Living in an open society does not mean tolerating those who aim to end the open society. The altright, as a rewarming of white nationalism, which is a rewarming of Nazism, seems to not be such a huge fan of our open society.
[+] [-] solipsism|9 years ago|reply
Then you probably have not read the article.
EDIT: inserted critical "not"
[+] [-] neotek|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnTHaller|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stefantalpalaru|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] et-al|9 years ago|reply
I'd be concerned of the same thing happening with this.
[+] [-] twblalock|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taneq|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PlumNutPrime|9 years ago|reply
Setup interest/location based groups and/or install the Chrome extension to comment on every site you visit. Post anonymously or use you Plum Name.
[+] [-] davexunit|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] carsongross|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stefantalpalaru|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sergiotapia|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dosgonlogs|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] charonn0|9 years ago|reply
This is what is called doxxing, and it's a direct violation of the TOS.
[+] [-] danjoc|9 years ago|reply
*To those who own the presses.
[+] [-] zdw|9 years ago|reply
Reddit is privately owned and run, so they get to make whatever rules they want.
[+] [-] tyre|9 years ago|reply
It's not unreasonable to ban hate-speech.
[+] [-] intro-b|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CharlesW|9 years ago|reply
*Doesn't mean freedom from consequences
[+] [-] noir_lord|9 years ago|reply
Also Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from Consequences.
[+] [-] charonn0|9 years ago|reply
[0]: https://github.com/reddit/reddit
[+] [-] chc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Daishiman|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] arjie|9 years ago|reply
Good riddance, I say. When productive people don't like their speech being suppressed they create lobste.rs. But these people aren't productive at all. They're useless wastrels, for whom the psychological kick of receiving an upvote from their feeble-minded brethren is sufficient to drag them through the day.
I will continue to use reddit for /r/rust and whatnot and it will be good.
Normally, I wouldn't even enter this conversation but there's this trend where people assume that these worthless fools are the majority simply because they spend every waking hour whining about some thing or the other. And then people act as if they must be placated. When really they should just go away.
[+] [-] razakel|9 years ago|reply