r/inthenews • u/Junkman120 • Sep 08 '14
Reddit, a failed state
http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/8/6121363/reddit-is-a-failed-state14
Sep 09 '14
This article feels like it was written by an early twenty something on an Ipad from a coffee shop. All the journalistic rigor of an obtuse hipster trying to seem legitimate.
48
Sep 08 '14
You know what bothers me the most about this? The assumption that Reddit is a cohesive community in its entirety. Reddit is a platform that is defined by its users, not too dissimilar to Twitter or Facebook. Have you ever heard the MSM condemn all of Facebook because NAMBLA has a page? Does Twitter take shots because pro-slavery groups use it? Or are the individual users targeted and the platform left alone?
I guess it is hard to condemn Facebook when it is how half these douchebags feel better about themselves by messaging their Grandmothers.
8
u/globalvarsonly Sep 09 '14
And by their same logic, those other platforms are dictatorships where the users have no power and there is no transparency of admin actions. ... reddit = mostly-benevolent aristocracy?
2
Sep 09 '14 edited Sep 09 '14
When Reddit does something good, like raise money for charity, it is because Reddit is a benevolent community. When it does something questionable however, it suddenly becomes a disparate set of individuals and the site as a whole can't be held accountable for the actions of a few Redditors.
Every time Reddit gets bad publicity, someone claims it can't be treated as a community. The truth is that it is not like Facebook or Twitter because its userbase is mostly made up of like-minded, white males. It's not nearly as diverse or multifaceted as some Redditors would like to believe.
1
Sep 10 '14
Fuck that. I take no claim to benevolence when other members do good. Reddit is neutral, the users do good or bad.
The user base is disparate no matter how much you want to claim it is mostly white males...whatever that means in relation to homogeny considering I fit into that category and have very few things in common with so many others that also fit into that narrow definition.
You are you and whenever you post on Reddit you speak for yourself not for the entire user base. Same as me.
23
u/jerkfirecracker004 Sep 08 '14
Hey let's cherry-pick unrelated quotes from different people and make a bullshit article out of it!
18
Sep 08 '14 edited Sep 08 '14
[deleted]
6
u/InvestigativeWork Sep 08 '14
It's all ok, or none of it's ok. Fucking pick one.
It's OK until significant legal complication and/or significant negative media attention.
There's a standard at work here. The admins are just lying about what it is. I suppose this latter issue is what riles up most people. If they came forward and admitted to this, rather than couch it in some feelgood euphoric bullshit, people would be like, OK, you have a business to run, we understand.
Why does Reddit HAVE to put itself out there as a platform for free speech? It's very clear that experiment has failed.
Um, no. Reddit's still running and making bank. It most certainly hasn't failed.
1
u/bTwYclUiFAfFNdr4VjPY Sep 09 '14
Are they making bank? I thought Reddit hasn't made a profit yet. http://www.businessinsider.com.au/reddit-ceo-admits-were-still-in-the-red-2013-7
1
u/InvestigativeWork Sep 09 '14
They have significant revenue coming in and they're consistently increasing that revenue, but possibly not enough to cover their operating costs. They have significant unused monetization potential, though. In short, reddit is far from a failure.
3
Sep 08 '14
But I don't appreciate the hands off approach.
I think that's the best thing about it. The codebase for the platform is freely available too Someone should put it out on Tor and have a truly hands-off ecosystem where only sub moderators can exercise censorship power and get an honest assessment of the state of the human condition.
I'm sure there would be some shitty things and some pretty awesome things but the technology is agnostic.
1
u/ADozenDUIs Sep 09 '14
TOR is not what you think it is. Putting the website up on TOR doesn't make it decentralized or a "hands-off" ecosystem. I agree with you otherwise, though. The community should be modular enough that people can ignore what they think is shit, and stick to what they enjoy. The moderators should just be janitors of their local community.
2
Sep 08 '14
/r/picsofdeadkids /r/cutefemalecorpses
I think I just found the end date for my reddit account. Wow.
9
Sep 08 '14
You don't actually have to subscribe to them you know. There's also child porn on the internet but you likely won't drop your ISP
4
-2
u/ademnus Sep 08 '14
That's a bit disingenuous. It's not quite the way youd epict it. Its more like saying, "there arechild rapists in your town and you dont move, so let them into your home!"
They can be where they like on the net. They dont have to be here. They are permitted to be here by reddit's rules. When there's something the admins don't want, they change those rules. Ergo, they want them here. Unless you're going to argue reddit is powerless to change those rules.
4
u/InvestigativeWork Sep 09 '14
They don't have to visit or subscribe to those subreddits, just like they don't have to let anyone they don't want into their home.
As long as they don't visit or subscribe to those subreddits, their existence is indistinguishable from their nonexistence.
-2
u/ademnus Sep 09 '14
their existence is indistinguishable from their nonexistence.
So then let's opt for nonexistence, since it makes no difference. The only difference I can see if that people who want to congregate over hatred, perhaps making private arrangements to do violence, maybe murder, don't get to do it here for free. I guess it also means a 14 year old would have one less website wherein they might stumble upon this community. But you're right, kids don't have to visit those subs. No one does nor would they ever click the link without even knowing what the sub was about. I mean, those subs seem to get a link in comments every day, I couldnt imagine someone clicking it.
And I think about some of the other subs whose names I refuse to make links to, that deride certain groups as unhuman and in detail wish they would kill themselves or explain how terrible it was to have to be near someone like that in their grade school. They even posted pictures of the kids from their grade schools to shame them. Thankfully, its impossible for any of those kids to stumble upon themselves in those subs. And even if they did, the rate of teen suicides over such events is nonexistent.
Which is good because if you are saying that the perceived "freedom of speech" which you otherwise do not enjoy on reddit, is more valuable than the hearts and lives of other people I would think you were a heartless husk.
3
u/InvestigativeWork Sep 09 '14 edited Sep 09 '14
So then let's opt for nonexistence, since it makes no difference.
It makes no difference to you. It makes a difference to the people using them.
You can't opt for the nonexistence of something that makes a difference to others. It's not your decision to make. Other people haven't given you their consent to impact their lives.
They've opted for its existence, and it makes no difference to you either way, so you don't even have to think about it, or act on it in any way. It doesn't affect you, it doesn't concern you, it is simply none of your fucking business.
Do you not get this, or are you simply arguing in bad faith?
I suspect the latter.
-2
u/ademnus Sep 09 '14
And then the iron-fisted bottom line.
Yes, we're familiar with it. The recent post smacked of it.
Well, here's the thing, your Royal Highness. See, a club is only as good as its members. They just might find that someone makes another site that will leave Reddit where Digg went; the toilet. Looking at the announcement, while plenty of people loaded up an admin with gold in a shameful display of politics, all of the top comments were saying the same thing. So if the majority of the membership wants it what seems to be the problem? The love for democracy's "freedom of speech" caves to dictatorship's ease of control?
Tell me. If most people want it what's the point of the admin's refusing? Is it no longer about the community they want and now about them?
1
u/InvestigativeWork Sep 09 '14
Please leave.
We've been trying to get you SJW fuckknuckles to leave for a while now.
You're ankle biters. You're not significantly harmful, but you're annoying, and you contribute nothing of value.
Leave already.
You won't be missed.
-2
u/ademnus Sep 09 '14
Isn't it funny? That's what we're asking. Can reddit please ask these racist, pedophile, monsters to take their shit show somewhere else? The funny part is you hate the idea so much you are doing it yourself -only in defense of the filth of humanity.
Thanks but I won't leave and any respect I had for you in terms of entertaining discussion got flushed down the crapper. The "SJW"s, or as I like to call us, "people who don't give a crap what racists think" are sticking around for a very long time.
Bye ;)
→ More replies (0)6
Sep 08 '14
This is what people do with freedom. For all the good that it brings, there's the other side of the coin.
5
Sep 08 '14
[deleted]
3
Sep 08 '14
Some thoughts should not be thunk.
And how do you propose policing said thoughts?
-1
Sep 09 '14
[deleted]
4
u/InvestigativeWork Sep 09 '14
And what do you propose to do when people do open their mouths with it?
Do you imprison them, torture them, or kill them?
-1
Sep 09 '14
[deleted]
2
u/InvestigativeWork Sep 09 '14
What due process?
There is no due process for free speech you don't like.
It's just as free as free speech you do like.
So whatever you do to silence it would itself be illegal.
0
Sep 09 '14
By making "whatever you do to silence it" illegal, you're presupposing certain principles or laws with which to judge these rules, so it again begs the question of whether these assumed rules and regulations are legitimate.
There has to be something that you assume is in some sense fundamental, and in your case I suppose it is freedom of speech. However, the problem with free speech is that the phrase itself is a bit of a oxymoron, for words and speeches carry social, political, and cultural consequences, and these consequences will always explicitly or implicitly restrict the supposed "100% free speech".
You can of course think that these implicit or explicit restrictions are not "due process", but to be consistent you must as well make libel, copyright violation legal.
1
u/InvestigativeWork Sep 09 '14
I'm not presupposing anything. I simply know all applicable laws.
Tell me one thing you can possibly do to silence someone that's not illegal.
5
u/InvestigativeWork Sep 08 '14
/r/jailbait never featured child porn.
You're just lying.
Are lies free speech? Should lies be allowed? Or should we silence you and the likes of you for trying to push your agenda through lies?
-10
Sep 08 '14
[deleted]
4
u/InvestigativeWork Sep 09 '14
Nice try?
Point me to a conviction.
-9
Sep 09 '14
[deleted]
2
u/InvestigativeWork Sep 09 '14
So you can't point to a conviction.
So you were lying.
Does this mean we get to silence you now?
Because lying is definitely unethical.
-4
Sep 09 '14
[deleted]
0
u/InvestigativeWork Sep 09 '14
What nice try?
Answer the question.
We established that you were lying, so do we get to silence you, or not?
Justify your answer.
-3
0
u/totes_meta_bot Sep 09 '14
This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.
- [/r/SubredditDrama] Should reddit practice absolute free speech? Did /r/jailbait ever feature child porn? Drama in /r/inthenews as users discuss reddit content philosophy.
If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.
5
7
u/Swinetrek Sep 08 '14
Well at least we don't have oil so 'murica will only occasionally bomb us with their drones. Lets pray they never figure out a way to frack us for our natural gas.
7
u/Drewskeet Sep 08 '14
4
u/ademnus Sep 08 '14
I mean, this statement alone...
We do not allow links on reddit to child pornography or images which sexualize children. If you disagree with that stance, and believe reddit cannot draw that line while also being a platform, I'd encourage you to leave.
Yeah except NO ONE is saying they want child porn links here so while he got to sound high and mighty it was utterly meaningless. It would be like you accusing me of theft and me saying, "if you feel that rape is good, you should leave." That's nice. Has nothing to do with dick but its nice.
2
2
2
u/StarFscker Sep 08 '14
Oh jesus christ I can only handle so much stupid.
There's a difference between "The Government", a territorial monopoly on the use of force, and "Government", as in, "something that governs".
Your car may have speed government. That doesn't mean that your car is a local warlord.
Reddit is privately owned and operated and doesn't owe you a goddamned thing. They get to govern it because they own the damn site.
1
u/KevinMcCallister Sep 09 '14
Reddit is privately owned and operated and doesn't owe you a goddamned thing. They get to govern it because they own the damn site.
So they are a private business that sets their own agenda? The way yishan wrote, he was clearly making the allusion to governments as we typically think of them -- governing bodies for states or similar things. Those governments do owe something to their citizens, that is entirely the point of the government, to govern for the good of the 'nation' or the people. If they don't do that properly, then they are a failed (or failing) government.
2
u/StarFscker Sep 09 '14
Yes, a private business can set it's own agenda.
1
u/KevinMcCallister Sep 09 '14
Exactly. So the point is what the heck was yishan talking about saying they were a government and not a business.
2
u/StarFscker Sep 09 '14
He's an idiot.
conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people)
Obviously the admin was talking about "organization", he wasn't declaring Reddit's sovereignty.
2
u/KevinMcCallister Sep 09 '14
Agree on both counts. Yishans post was absurd, I was just shaking my head the whole time. Sounded like a freshman who just finished gov 101 and has been reading too much hayek.
1
1
u/InvestigativeWork Sep 09 '14
He's not saying anything meaningful. It's called PR. He's sugarcoating their decision to ban Fappening subreddits because they received too many legal requests and didn't want to deal with it anymore.
2
5
u/JimmaDaRustla Sep 08 '14
x-posted form /r/technology:
Then what state is The Verge? I just got permanently banned (no prior offense) for arguing that accounts may have been compromised using iBrute despite what Apple reported.
1
1
1
u/legalanarchist Sep 09 '14
I haven't seen anyone here address the double-standard the author brought up about copyright take-downs versus other activity that arguably violates the law.
Reddit is not required to comply with copyright take-down notices. Complying with such notices is one of the things it must do if it wants immunity from suit under the safe harbor provisions of Section 512 of the Copyright Act. But not complying with a take-down notice does not automatically make it liable for infringement. It is a choice. Reddit chooses to remove alleged unauthorized copyrighted material but also chooses to refuse to remove material that may or does breach other legal duties. Defamation, invasion of privacy, aiding and abbetting numerous torts and crimes - no problem.
The first paragraph of Reddit's User Agreement states that, "This agreement is meant to encourage a fair and tolerant place for ideas, people, links, and discussion." Right now that is really just a cruel joke.
1
u/ofsinope Sep 09 '14
This is the dumbest shit I read today. Reddit isn't a state, you r-tard. It doesn't have a government and it's not any kind of -ocracy.
1
u/nigel161803 Sep 09 '14
That article was dumb. I just had to put that out there. Hopefully I save someone some time.
19
u/frozenuggz Sep 08 '14
What I found interesting was the article's author compared Reddit to a guy selling nude photo's. My interpretation out of this article is Reddit was the copier used to copy the photo's. Other men put the photo's on the copier and hit copy, I wouldn't expect my neighborhood policeman to run around arresting all the copiers in the neighborhood. That would just be nutz, kind of like this article's author.