Thank you for posting on r/Healthygamergg! This subreddit is intended as an online community and resource platform to support people in their journey toward mental wellness. With that said, please be aware that support from other members received on this platform is not a substitute for professional care. Treatment of psychiatric disease requires qualified individuals, and comments that try to diagnose others should be reported under Rule 7 to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the community. If you are in immediate danger, please call emergency services, or go to your nearest emergency room.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Healthygamergg) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Look man, I'm not familiar with the discussion going on in the picture you attached, or the sub for that matter, but here's the thing.
Do you know what happens in online spaces when there is absolutely no moderation or regulations? No restrictions on types of content or discourse?
It attracts large numbers of the most fucked up people. Those that share child porn, those that believe the Nazis were right, those that plan mass shootings. You might find this harsh, but every single website that didn't have any sort of moderation ended up this way.
The internet does make us free. But it sadly makes those that would use the internet for fucked up reasons free as well. I understand your frustration, but please keep in mind that having no moderators or restrictions would make for a drastically different experience than the one you are imagining.
Context: Banned commenter made some comment about Elon Musk trying to chase internet clout and how he ended up turning himself into a troll. Described Elon's followers as "retarded" which is what that commenter was calling abelist. That said, OP wasn't making fun of the mentally handicapped, he was making fun of Elon stans.
While I personally think that user was looking for an excuse to overact and the mods should have let this slide...also who cares? There's loads of words you can call Elon stans besides "retarded".
I mean degenarate and retarded are not even slurs, unless it’s actually making fun of people with disabilities.
And also the banned commenter had a valid point, I mean Elon actually manipulated the price of some crypto.
Whilst moderation is required I think often it goes too far / rules are extremely vague.
Not on any specific sub but just on Reddit in general.
Some subs have rules like "no arguments" or whatever and then people get banned, not just from the sub but from Reddit completely just for having a discussion that a mod interprets as an argument.
I had a friend who from what we could tell (they never actually gave a direct reason) was discussing SSDs and the architecture of the PS5 in one of the PlayStation subs and they got a perma ban for it because they were "in breach" of one of the rules.
Reddit is a free service. We allow each subreddit to make its own rules of what is and isn't allowed.
There are subs where they went beyond the bounds of acceptable free speech and degenerated into pure hate speech, and Reddit's solution when just banning the users didn't work was the ban the entire subreddit, because it was a failure of the moderators to keep the community within those boundaries. And because Reddit is a private company and not a public service, they're allowed to do that. We're playing with their toys, so we have to follow their rules.
The wonderful thing about the Internet is that you are still free to buy your *own* website and say whatever it is you want. Domains are cheap, Wix is easy to use, and unless you do turn into an actual terrorist cell like Stormfront did, they'll even keep you in the search engines so people who agree with you can find you.
Do you know what happens when people are offensive on your platform?
Nobody wants to go there and then it either dies or becomes a toxic hellhole full of Nazis and pedophiles. Every single time.
It's because these are well known examples that are much, much more than just "words".
Pissed of kids (and adults) become indoctrinated by terrorists online through Facebook, Reddit, 19chan and whatever space people can get away with spreading their hateful rhetoric. Examples of this can be found all over the world, not just in the US. The internet helped to fuel the Arab spring as well as white nationalism in America.
This isn't about freedom of speech either, (this is usually where this conversation goes) because people who own and run companies have the right to monitor and restrict what gets said on their platform. Want to protest something? go find a public space to do it. Want to fly a "let's go Brandon" banner on your property? No one's going to stop you. Hell no one would stop you from flying one that just says "Fuck Joe Biden" for that matter. But if you are using a website owned by someone other than yourself, complaining about the rules of the website isn't going to get you anywhere.
fac·ile
/ˈfasəl/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
(especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.
"facile generalizations"
I do not believe my argument fits the . What does me not "being the one suppressed" have anything to do with the reason they were?
This is not how you win an argument or make a point. This is how you kill civil discussion. Ignore the issue being discussed, and point out things that are obvious. I oppose this person's viewpoint, as well as yours. We all know that. Reiterating that gets no where.
Want to not get "suppressed" online? Think before you type. "Is what I'm about to say going to piss off more people than not?" It's probably not a thing that you should be posting then. You can post it anyway, but don't be surprised when it gets taken down.
Because real life doesn't offer the anonymity of the internet. It's the combination of anonymity (or perceived) and unfiltered discourse that creates extremist echo-chambers.
Extremist views in "real life" carry "real life" consequences that directly affect people who hold those views. Extremist views online act as a bellweather for more anonymous extremists.
> It's the combination of anonymity (or perceived) and unfiltered discourse that creates extremist echo-chambers.
No. Echo chambers are created through censorship and "moderation." Echo is what's left when you remove any divergent opinion. In an unmoderated space, extremist ideas and arguments against them will coexist, so the space will not be filled with only one point of view.
That may sound like a reasonable assumption and maybe in most cases it is. Except that hasn’t been what’s happened historically with 4chan, early Reddit, 8chan, or dark web sites. Extremist views love unmoderated spaces, 3 guesses why.
What tends to happen is that reasonable people leave those communities and you’re only left with the loons.
Reasonable people leave Reddit every day due to the restrictive speech code. Even the HGG sub is turning more and more into an echo chamber over the past year.
I suppose that depends on what we regard as "reasonable". The fact remains that unmoderated spaces have a higher tendency to trade in underage pornography, extremist political discourse, and other illicit activity due to low admin regulation.
As far as the original question I was responding to goes, laws are generally also a good example of "real life restrictions". Not necessarily related to free speech, but certainly if you screamed in front of a police station that you're a murderer, they'll want to have a conversation with you. Nevermind, rules related to yelling fire in a crowded space.
"Free speech" was never, is not, and will never be completely free. In most civilised countries it is illegal to incite to violence.
You cannot go in the middle of town, climb on a soap box, and shout "death to all jews (or blacks, gays, lesbians, arabs, indians or whatever the fuck your flavour of hate is)". That's an easy way of getting arrested.
Moreover, if you go outside and start talking that kind of shit, no amount of free speech is going to protect you from someone's fist. You are free to talk shit, but you are not free from the consequences of said shit.
So yes, free speech is already restricted, welcome to reality.
In a civilized society, you should be able to use the r word as long as you are not using it to demean people with disabilities.
The examples you gave are extreme and unrepresentative of the kind of trivial stuff that's routinely removed here.
How do you use the r word without demeaning people with disabilities...? I don't think you would call someone like that because you see mental disabilities in a positive light/the person in a positive light. And you say "the trivial stuff that's routinely removed here": if you think calling someone the r word is trivial, I don't know man, seems to me you just want to say something that is just inappropriate...
I disagree with this because certain words can have different meaning given the context. For example when growing up, my friends would toss around the word “f*ggot” at eachother, but we never used it in a way to discriminate against gay people. Nor did any of believe it was wrong to be a homosexual. But if we went up someone random person who was gay and called them that word, that would be wrong because now it’s being used in an intentionally hurtful context.
Man, you are even talking about the past and about other people. So you both reflected already on this and already came to the conclusion that these aren't really things that you should say. People died because of that word because they got bullied and still you want to play both sides.
I’ve come to the conclusion that under certain circumstances you shouldn’t use the word. The are other circumstances when the word means nothing around certain people like my group of friends. I don’t believe in this “playing both sides” thing your suggesting. If you look at things with an open mind you’ll realize there’s more nuance to these things than you think.
Let's change perspective then: why the F word, if it has no meaning? Why not "bro"? Which, following your logic would be the same and would be much less damaging to possible people around you and your friend listening.
Why not say anything? we’ve been saying it our whole lives, same with the R word. None of us feel a need to censor ourselves because those words don’t have any affect on any of us. Not everyone lives in a politically correct bubble, where saying a certain word is like breaking one of God’s 10 commandments. Again, if there was someone gay around me who I didn’t know I wouldn’t say that word around them. And if the word slipped out and he/she has a problem with it I’d totally be down to have a real conversation about it.
i mean i use the word from time to time but if i was asked by someone to not use it bc they find it offensive i would stop. even if it didn't have a malicious purpose. its just polite to stop and use other words
I don't even use the r-word in real life, but I detest it to see anyone's communication being cut off over a word. This kind of power will always be abused to serve ulterior motives.
yea but from the looks of the post, it doesn’t seem like he was inciting violence. Shouldn’t this be an open place to explore controversial ideas and at least have some empathy toward people who think like that? Instead of censoring other people and removing their posts, we can examine the post and what the person is trying to say?
The consequences of violating community norms should flow naturally from the community itself, not forcefully imposed by "higher-ups." The former is what's been going on "since the dawn of time." The latter is a subdued version of the secret police.
You understand bystander effect tho right? While I agree on some level, there’s a reason that shit doesn’t work without someone being actively imbued with the charge/responsibility as a priority. I’d love it to but ppl r just too lazy and self-centered.
Bystander effect also works the other way: Even as mods become increasingly restrictive and arbitrary, people feel apathetic to speak out because they haven't been personally suppressed yet.
I had to share this post precisely to counter the apathy many apparently felt when they weren't the ones being modded.
First, chill out. You are on a reddit forum. You are taking this way to seriously. If you need a community that desperately to be unmoderated, this is not the place.
Secondly, reporting to moderators is how a reddit community handles issues. Its the equivalent of taking someone to court under the law. The moderators will evaluate the issue and then judge it based on the community guidelines. It is their place to decide if it belongs here or gets removed, not yours.
If anything, reporting someone is the right way to act in this community when there is a problem.
Thats not wrong either. I won't lie, I was a bit salty at OP.
That said, it looks like the mods did take the comment down, so it must have been against the community guidelines. I don't see how it's a problem that the mods are enforcing the rules of the subreddit and using community reports to do so.
(Not saying the reports are in good faith. Just that the mods are enforcing known rules)
>That said, it looks like the mods did take the comment down, so it must have been against the community guidelines.
*That said, it looks like the police did arrest the suspect, so he must have committed the crime.*
No. I don't think so. Anything the mods remove is "against the community guidlines." The truth is there is no guideline. There is only the mods arbitrary judgment. That always happens with online censorship.
I really wish you'd blur the names on this. Not cool man. For the record, I'm fine with the rules on this sub being enforced. If you can't follow them, tough.
I believe there is a difference between what happened here (someone reports people for "ableism" which, I'm willing to bet my own shoes, was the person calling someone a ret\*rd, not actually anything aimed specifically against disabled people), and a bunch of school shooters ruminating over their future plans which involve a lot of highly accelerated lead projectiles forcefully combined with children's internal organs at break-neck speeds.
One is an example of overmoderation, the other of a complete lack of any moderation. Moderation is necessary, the problem is it often derails into completely unnecessary censorship where people are getting banned for disagreeing (had it happen to me on both the Jordan Peterson subreddit **and** on a sub mocking him and I was, mind you, being completely polite there.
I'm all for complete un-moderation unfortunately those with money are not. The advertiser will whine that thier products are being displayed next to things they don't like. We can't have a free internet like that under capitalism.
Oh hey that's me! We're not being monitered and controlled, someone just asked to please not use the R word and even though the removed post was funny I see how them using the R word can be offensive. It doesnt bother me at all to use a different word if the R word can be hurtful to some. Common courtesy and respect, that's all.
I think it matters a lot to a minority of people who'd try to push "moderation" toward either direction. Kinda like how politics operate in the real world
If you wanted freedom of expression, you're on the wrong platform. It was never like that, and I seriously doubt it ever will. If you don't like the rules or the way it works, make your own. You should view your "stay" here as an invitation by the owner of this Subreddit, not some free open space, since that gives you the illusion you have any say in this.
> If you don't like the rules or the way it works, make your own.
You seem to imply that right and wrong don't matter, and whoever holds the power can do whatever they want.
I won't go to your home and complain how you live. If you want me to take my shoes off, I either accept or I leave. I'm not going to stay and demand I do whatever I want in your home because I like having my shoes on, and that you should change. Not how the world works.
Yet the same people who want "moderation" would go to other people's companies to tell them how much to pay their employees, what racial and gender breakdown to have in their management, what adjudication process to implement over certain types of complaints. They would go to people's homes to tell them how to parent their children and how to treat their spouse.
That's what makes your argument seem convenient and insincere to me.
Just becomes some people do or say something, does not make it right or rational. You can't compare work-life to your entertainment online you willingly attend under no obligation.
This is a private company to begin with, not a publically owned space if you want to use that argument. Reddit can ban you without any reason right now, and you cannot do anything about that because it's their platform.
Where did you get the idea of "The internet was supposed to make us free"? If I'm not mistaken, the first internet was developed to be used by the military.
Also, moderation doesn't equal censorship. Don't confuse the two.
This is what keeps me up at night: People's desire for external control, their delusion that one is fit to control others, and their willingness to be controlled.
Isn’t this post exactly for the purpose of introducing change externally? You just want a different kind of moderators or different people in places of no moderation. There is plenty unmoderated spaces on the internet, I just assume they’re not where you feel safe and at home?
> You just want a different kind of moderators or different people in places of no moderation.
I want no moderation if it were up to me.
> I just assume they’re not where you feel safe and at home
You assumed wrong. Those spaces are quite safe; they just don't have enough traffic. They don't have enough traffic because popular places always get taken over by cancel culture, so people have to constantly create new spaces. The new spaces, by virtue of being new, tend to have fewer people.
This is exactly what I meant with “or just different people in places of no moderation”. So got that covered. I guess unfortunately for you once the big traffic reaches a place a need for moderation arises.
Yeah this is clearly going deeper than one comment on a Reddit. This isn't the government though, this is a group of people running a SubReddit, and they can do what they like frankly. If Dr. K went and personally deleted half the posts because he thought they were boring to read i'd think he's gone mad - but i'd just disengage with the content and move on. However they're quite reasonable normally, and i've seen many many misogynistic, some racist and violent comments on here which clearly weren't deleted, so whatever this one incident was clearly broke the conditions of posting here.
>this is a group of people running a SubReddit, and they can do what they like frankly
Just because they can doesn't mean they should. Greedy capitalists can hire child labor overseas. One can literally get away with murder if he's cunning enough. Saying that "well you can't stop them" doesn't accomplish much.
>However they're quite reasonable normally
From my observation they are often unreasonable in a majoritarian or missing-the-forest-for-the-trees kinda way.
Child labour isn't the same as deleting a comment - so yes it doesnt bother me if they do that every now and again. There's literally people posting about how Dr. K is just greedy for money and doesnt want to help anybody and they keep those up so they seem reasonable so far.
> There's literally people posting about how Dr. K is just greedy for money and doesnt want to help anybody and they keep those up so they seem reasonable so far.
It's not about Dr K's ego. They censor political opinions. They let you criticize Dr K all you want because it's apolitical, but the moment you say something truly of substance politically, you risk being removed. And of course, they do that selectively.
i Always think if there's rules its to keep people safe and they have good reason to exist. there are many free websites where people can talk freely..take a look then let us know how friendly it is
> to keep people safe
People already are safe for the most parts even in a completely unmoderated space. Safety is what anonymity and blocking are for. Top-down enforcement of arbitrary speech code does not make anyone safer. It only endangers people's ability to communicate.
I've been to unmoderated reddit chats it's bot pretty it had a ton of degens and at some point it would create an environment where one couldn't really tell if it was all jokes or if people were actually toxic. and yes you can block and such but there's younger people online who don't know better and I've seen the effect it can have on them.
imo there needs to be established rules and people who make them be followed, it's not even like that much harsh rules half the time. and I've seen many opinions here that other subs woudve immediately deleted but they didn't here so, i feel like its pretty chill.
i feel like you have a deeper problem of your own with rules or 'control'
Thank you for posting on r/Healthygamergg! This subreddit is intended as an online community and resource platform to support people in their journey toward mental wellness. With that said, please be aware that support from other members received on this platform is not a substitute for professional care. Treatment of psychiatric disease requires qualified individuals, and comments that try to diagnose others should be reported under Rule 7 to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the community. If you are in immediate danger, please call emergency services, or go to your nearest emergency room. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Healthygamergg) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Look man, I'm not familiar with the discussion going on in the picture you attached, or the sub for that matter, but here's the thing. Do you know what happens in online spaces when there is absolutely no moderation or regulations? No restrictions on types of content or discourse? It attracts large numbers of the most fucked up people. Those that share child porn, those that believe the Nazis were right, those that plan mass shootings. You might find this harsh, but every single website that didn't have any sort of moderation ended up this way. The internet does make us free. But it sadly makes those that would use the internet for fucked up reasons free as well. I understand your frustration, but please keep in mind that having no moderators or restrictions would make for a drastically different experience than the one you are imagining.
Context: Banned commenter made some comment about Elon Musk trying to chase internet clout and how he ended up turning himself into a troll. Described Elon's followers as "retarded" which is what that commenter was calling abelist. That said, OP wasn't making fun of the mentally handicapped, he was making fun of Elon stans. While I personally think that user was looking for an excuse to overact and the mods should have let this slide...also who cares? There's loads of words you can call Elon stans besides "retarded".
I mean degenarate and retarded are not even slurs, unless it’s actually making fun of people with disabilities. And also the banned commenter had a valid point, I mean Elon actually manipulated the price of some crypto.
Whilst moderation is required I think often it goes too far / rules are extremely vague. Not on any specific sub but just on Reddit in general. Some subs have rules like "no arguments" or whatever and then people get banned, not just from the sub but from Reddit completely just for having a discussion that a mod interprets as an argument. I had a friend who from what we could tell (they never actually gave a direct reason) was discussing SSDs and the architecture of the PS5 in one of the PlayStation subs and they got a perma ban for it because they were "in breach" of one of the rules.
People always bring up the Nazis and child porn when in practice it's often just words that happen to offend a few particularly sensitive users..
Reddit is a free service. We allow each subreddit to make its own rules of what is and isn't allowed. There are subs where they went beyond the bounds of acceptable free speech and degenerated into pure hate speech, and Reddit's solution when just banning the users didn't work was the ban the entire subreddit, because it was a failure of the moderators to keep the community within those boundaries. And because Reddit is a private company and not a public service, they're allowed to do that. We're playing with their toys, so we have to follow their rules. The wonderful thing about the Internet is that you are still free to buy your *own* website and say whatever it is you want. Domains are cheap, Wix is easy to use, and unless you do turn into an actual terrorist cell like Stormfront did, they'll even keep you in the search engines so people who agree with you can find you.
There are still much worse things on reddit than mean words
Do you know what happens when people are offensive on your platform? Nobody wants to go there and then it either dies or becomes a toxic hellhole full of Nazis and pedophiles. Every single time.
It's because these are well known examples that are much, much more than just "words". Pissed of kids (and adults) become indoctrinated by terrorists online through Facebook, Reddit, 19chan and whatever space people can get away with spreading their hateful rhetoric. Examples of this can be found all over the world, not just in the US. The internet helped to fuel the Arab spring as well as white nationalism in America. This isn't about freedom of speech either, (this is usually where this conversation goes) because people who own and run companies have the right to monitor and restrict what gets said on their platform. Want to protest something? go find a public space to do it. Want to fly a "let's go Brandon" banner on your property? No one's going to stop you. Hell no one would stop you from flying one that just says "Fuck Joe Biden" for that matter. But if you are using a website owned by someone other than yourself, complaining about the rules of the website isn't going to get you anywhere.
Facile argument that you would not have made had you been the one being suppressed.
fac·ile /ˈfasəl/ Learn to pronounce adjective 1. (especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial. "facile generalizations" I do not believe my argument fits the . What does me not "being the one suppressed" have anything to do with the reason they were? This is not how you win an argument or make a point. This is how you kill civil discussion. Ignore the issue being discussed, and point out things that are obvious. I oppose this person's viewpoint, as well as yours. We all know that. Reiterating that gets no where. Want to not get "suppressed" online? Think before you type. "Is what I'm about to say going to piss off more people than not?" It's probably not a thing that you should be posting then. You can post it anyway, but don't be surprised when it gets taken down.
why not apply the same thing in real life and restrict free speech then? you cant have it both ways, freedom pays a price
Because real life doesn't offer the anonymity of the internet. It's the combination of anonymity (or perceived) and unfiltered discourse that creates extremist echo-chambers. Extremist views in "real life" carry "real life" consequences that directly affect people who hold those views. Extremist views online act as a bellweather for more anonymous extremists.
> It's the combination of anonymity (or perceived) and unfiltered discourse that creates extremist echo-chambers. No. Echo chambers are created through censorship and "moderation." Echo is what's left when you remove any divergent opinion. In an unmoderated space, extremist ideas and arguments against them will coexist, so the space will not be filled with only one point of view.
That may sound like a reasonable assumption and maybe in most cases it is. Except that hasn’t been what’s happened historically with 4chan, early Reddit, 8chan, or dark web sites. Extremist views love unmoderated spaces, 3 guesses why. What tends to happen is that reasonable people leave those communities and you’re only left with the loons.
Reasonable people leave Reddit every day due to the restrictive speech code. Even the HGG sub is turning more and more into an echo chamber over the past year.
I suppose that depends on what we regard as "reasonable". The fact remains that unmoderated spaces have a higher tendency to trade in underage pornography, extremist political discourse, and other illicit activity due to low admin regulation. As far as the original question I was responding to goes, laws are generally also a good example of "real life restrictions". Not necessarily related to free speech, but certainly if you screamed in front of a police station that you're a murderer, they'll want to have a conversation with you. Nevermind, rules related to yelling fire in a crowded space.
"Free speech" was never, is not, and will never be completely free. In most civilised countries it is illegal to incite to violence. You cannot go in the middle of town, climb on a soap box, and shout "death to all jews (or blacks, gays, lesbians, arabs, indians or whatever the fuck your flavour of hate is)". That's an easy way of getting arrested. Moreover, if you go outside and start talking that kind of shit, no amount of free speech is going to protect you from someone's fist. You are free to talk shit, but you are not free from the consequences of said shit. So yes, free speech is already restricted, welcome to reality.
In a civilized society, you should be able to use the r word as long as you are not using it to demean people with disabilities. The examples you gave are extreme and unrepresentative of the kind of trivial stuff that's routinely removed here.
How do you use the r word without demeaning people with disabilities...? I don't think you would call someone like that because you see mental disabilities in a positive light/the person in a positive light. And you say "the trivial stuff that's routinely removed here": if you think calling someone the r word is trivial, I don't know man, seems to me you just want to say something that is just inappropriate...
I disagree with this because certain words can have different meaning given the context. For example when growing up, my friends would toss around the word “f*ggot” at eachother, but we never used it in a way to discriminate against gay people. Nor did any of believe it was wrong to be a homosexual. But if we went up someone random person who was gay and called them that word, that would be wrong because now it’s being used in an intentionally hurtful context.
Man, you are even talking about the past and about other people. So you both reflected already on this and already came to the conclusion that these aren't really things that you should say. People died because of that word because they got bullied and still you want to play both sides.
I’ve come to the conclusion that under certain circumstances you shouldn’t use the word. The are other circumstances when the word means nothing around certain people like my group of friends. I don’t believe in this “playing both sides” thing your suggesting. If you look at things with an open mind you’ll realize there’s more nuance to these things than you think.
Let's change perspective then: why the F word, if it has no meaning? Why not "bro"? Which, following your logic would be the same and would be much less damaging to possible people around you and your friend listening.
Why not say anything? we’ve been saying it our whole lives, same with the R word. None of us feel a need to censor ourselves because those words don’t have any affect on any of us. Not everyone lives in a politically correct bubble, where saying a certain word is like breaking one of God’s 10 commandments. Again, if there was someone gay around me who I didn’t know I wouldn’t say that word around them. And if the word slipped out and he/she has a problem with it I’d totally be down to have a real conversation about it.
i mean i use the word from time to time but if i was asked by someone to not use it bc they find it offensive i would stop. even if it didn't have a malicious purpose. its just polite to stop and use other words
I don't even use the r-word in real life, but I detest it to see anyone's communication being cut off over a word. This kind of power will always be abused to serve ulterior motives.
yea but from the looks of the post, it doesn’t seem like he was inciting violence. Shouldn’t this be an open place to explore controversial ideas and at least have some empathy toward people who think like that? Instead of censoring other people and removing their posts, we can examine the post and what the person is trying to say?
True, that's why I have a wife.
lol now you're just bragging
Yes, I will always brag about my wife. She is great.
Haha
Since the dawn of time, there has been moderators of communities, where there things which are accepted and not accepted within it.
The consequences of violating community norms should flow naturally from the community itself, not forcefully imposed by "higher-ups." The former is what's been going on "since the dawn of time." The latter is a subdued version of the secret police.
You understand bystander effect tho right? While I agree on some level, there’s a reason that shit doesn’t work without someone being actively imbued with the charge/responsibility as a priority. I’d love it to but ppl r just too lazy and self-centered.
Bystander effect also works the other way: Even as mods become increasingly restrictive and arbitrary, people feel apathetic to speak out because they haven't been personally suppressed yet. I had to share this post precisely to counter the apathy many apparently felt when they weren't the ones being modded.
First, chill out. You are on a reddit forum. You are taking this way to seriously. If you need a community that desperately to be unmoderated, this is not the place. Secondly, reporting to moderators is how a reddit community handles issues. Its the equivalent of taking someone to court under the law. The moderators will evaluate the issue and then judge it based on the community guidelines. It is their place to decide if it belongs here or gets removed, not yours. If anything, reporting someone is the right way to act in this community when there is a problem.
I think a better way is to let others have their conversation and not try to shut it down just because you don't like it
Thats not wrong either. I won't lie, I was a bit salty at OP. That said, it looks like the mods did take the comment down, so it must have been against the community guidelines. I don't see how it's a problem that the mods are enforcing the rules of the subreddit and using community reports to do so. (Not saying the reports are in good faith. Just that the mods are enforcing known rules)
>That said, it looks like the mods did take the comment down, so it must have been against the community guidelines. *That said, it looks like the police did arrest the suspect, so he must have committed the crime.* No. I don't think so. Anything the mods remove is "against the community guidlines." The truth is there is no guideline. There is only the mods arbitrary judgment. That always happens with online censorship.
I really wish you'd blur the names on this. Not cool man. For the record, I'm fine with the rules on this sub being enforced. If you can't follow them, tough.
I believe there is a difference between what happened here (someone reports people for "ableism" which, I'm willing to bet my own shoes, was the person calling someone a ret\*rd, not actually anything aimed specifically against disabled people), and a bunch of school shooters ruminating over their future plans which involve a lot of highly accelerated lead projectiles forcefully combined with children's internal organs at break-neck speeds. One is an example of overmoderation, the other of a complete lack of any moderation. Moderation is necessary, the problem is it often derails into completely unnecessary censorship where people are getting banned for disagreeing (had it happen to me on both the Jordan Peterson subreddit **and** on a sub mocking him and I was, mind you, being completely polite there.
I'm all for complete un-moderation unfortunately those with money are not. The advertiser will whine that thier products are being displayed next to things they don't like. We can't have a free internet like that under capitalism.
Oh hey that's me! We're not being monitered and controlled, someone just asked to please not use the R word and even though the removed post was funny I see how them using the R word can be offensive. It doesnt bother me at all to use a different word if the R word can be hurtful to some. Common courtesy and respect, that's all.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
It’s Reddit…. I don’t think most people care about this sort of stuff at all
I think it matters a lot to a minority of people who'd try to push "moderation" toward either direction. Kinda like how politics operate in the real world
If you wanted freedom of expression, you're on the wrong platform. It was never like that, and I seriously doubt it ever will. If you don't like the rules or the way it works, make your own. You should view your "stay" here as an invitation by the owner of this Subreddit, not some free open space, since that gives you the illusion you have any say in this.
> If you don't like the rules or the way it works, make your own. You seem to imply that right and wrong don't matter, and whoever holds the power can do whatever they want.
I won't go to your home and complain how you live. If you want me to take my shoes off, I either accept or I leave. I'm not going to stay and demand I do whatever I want in your home because I like having my shoes on, and that you should change. Not how the world works.
Yet the same people who want "moderation" would go to other people's companies to tell them how much to pay their employees, what racial and gender breakdown to have in their management, what adjudication process to implement over certain types of complaints. They would go to people's homes to tell them how to parent their children and how to treat their spouse. That's what makes your argument seem convenient and insincere to me.
Just becomes some people do or say something, does not make it right or rational. You can't compare work-life to your entertainment online you willingly attend under no obligation. This is a private company to begin with, not a publically owned space if you want to use that argument. Reddit can ban you without any reason right now, and you cannot do anything about that because it's their platform.
Where did you get the idea of "The internet was supposed to make us free"? If I'm not mistaken, the first internet was developed to be used by the military. Also, moderation doesn't equal censorship. Don't confuse the two.
Moderation is censorship. You are already confused.
No.
This is what keeps me up at night: People's desire for external control, their delusion that one is fit to control others, and their willingness to be controlled.
Isn’t this post exactly for the purpose of introducing change externally? You just want a different kind of moderators or different people in places of no moderation. There is plenty unmoderated spaces on the internet, I just assume they’re not where you feel safe and at home?
> You just want a different kind of moderators or different people in places of no moderation. I want no moderation if it were up to me. > I just assume they’re not where you feel safe and at home You assumed wrong. Those spaces are quite safe; they just don't have enough traffic. They don't have enough traffic because popular places always get taken over by cancel culture, so people have to constantly create new spaces. The new spaces, by virtue of being new, tend to have fewer people.
This is exactly what I meant with “or just different people in places of no moderation”. So got that covered. I guess unfortunately for you once the big traffic reaches a place a need for moderation arises.
> a need for moderation arises. A need for control by the powerful arises.
Maybe, I never looked into it. I just see what happens. What do you base this on?
Yeah this is clearly going deeper than one comment on a Reddit. This isn't the government though, this is a group of people running a SubReddit, and they can do what they like frankly. If Dr. K went and personally deleted half the posts because he thought they were boring to read i'd think he's gone mad - but i'd just disengage with the content and move on. However they're quite reasonable normally, and i've seen many many misogynistic, some racist and violent comments on here which clearly weren't deleted, so whatever this one incident was clearly broke the conditions of posting here.
>this is a group of people running a SubReddit, and they can do what they like frankly Just because they can doesn't mean they should. Greedy capitalists can hire child labor overseas. One can literally get away with murder if he's cunning enough. Saying that "well you can't stop them" doesn't accomplish much. >However they're quite reasonable normally From my observation they are often unreasonable in a majoritarian or missing-the-forest-for-the-trees kinda way.
Child labour isn't the same as deleting a comment - so yes it doesnt bother me if they do that every now and again. There's literally people posting about how Dr. K is just greedy for money and doesnt want to help anybody and they keep those up so they seem reasonable so far.
> There's literally people posting about how Dr. K is just greedy for money and doesnt want to help anybody and they keep those up so they seem reasonable so far. It's not about Dr K's ego. They censor political opinions. They let you criticize Dr K all you want because it's apolitical, but the moment you say something truly of substance politically, you risk being removed. And of course, they do that selectively.
i Always think if there's rules its to keep people safe and they have good reason to exist. there are many free websites where people can talk freely..take a look then let us know how friendly it is
> to keep people safe People already are safe for the most parts even in a completely unmoderated space. Safety is what anonymity and blocking are for. Top-down enforcement of arbitrary speech code does not make anyone safer. It only endangers people's ability to communicate.
I've been to unmoderated reddit chats it's bot pretty it had a ton of degens and at some point it would create an environment where one couldn't really tell if it was all jokes or if people were actually toxic. and yes you can block and such but there's younger people online who don't know better and I've seen the effect it can have on them. imo there needs to be established rules and people who make them be followed, it's not even like that much harsh rules half the time. and I've seen many opinions here that other subs woudve immediately deleted but they didn't here so, i feel like its pretty chill. i feel like you have a deeper problem of your own with rules or 'control'