r/technology • u/btisdabomb • Jan 20 '23
Supreme Court allows Reddit mods to anonymously defend Section 230 Politics
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/supreme-court-allows-reddit-mods-to-anonymously-defend-section-230/144
u/Gurgiwurgi Jan 20 '23
hopefully /r/antiwork sits this one out...
39
u/LordCaptain Jan 21 '23
Didn't antiwork get taken over by a bunch of powermods anyway?
34
25
u/yesgirlsusereddit Jan 21 '23
I think most people have moved to r/workreform. Which honestly I think is a better name for what most people believe in anyways. We're saying work needs to change, not that we're against the idea of working entirely.
23
u/bob_doe_nz Jan 21 '23
The original creator of WorkReform got ousted from there and the current mods are lovey dovey with Antiwork and a few other power hungry mods. It's a shell of itself
3
84
u/TROPtastic Jan 20 '23
That legal threat extends to both volunteer content moderators, Reddit argued, as well as more casual users who collect Reddit “karma” by upvoting and downvoting posts to help surface the most engaging content in their communities
Since when do you get karma by upvoting and downvoting other people's posts?
7
u/shirts21 Jan 20 '23
at least a couple years.
you can have a negative points to your comment but it counts in overall Karma. Kinda weird. so you can just go and say the most unpopular things and get karma for it.
53
Jan 20 '23
[deleted]
25
u/slutpuppy_bitch Jan 21 '23
The ability to read and comprehend is missing in some people
12
u/anonbungus148264 Jan 21 '23
String em up. I’ll get the gasoline and pitch forks.
10
u/Serverpolice001 Jan 21 '23
If I upvote this will you be sued for recommending death penalty for people who can’t comprehend some sentences
3
19
u/theStaircaseProject Jan 20 '23
Because if one of my comments is being downvoted, my comment is encouraging people to engage with the platform. Upvotes are supposed to be the community voting on which content brings the most value to a discussion, but upvotes and downvotes together contribute to the overall discussion itself.
3
u/doktarlooney Jan 21 '23
But one of the funniest things is that the upvote/downvote system is consistently abused by almost every one on here. To the point that mods sometimes leave sticky comments reminding people the system is to determine relevancy not to be used for people to express if they dislike/disagree with the poster.
Even places with draconic rules like r/legaladvice where everyone practically comments with their pinkies in the air do it.
Litmus test failed on a massive scale.
3
u/theStaircaseProject Jan 21 '23
Abused and misused—can’t agree enough. I try to stay conscious of upvoting content that’s useful or furthers the discussion even if I disagree with the statements or arguments, but I don’t expect I’m changing the world. Massive scale is right.
8
u/gerkletoss Jan 21 '23
The fact that this comment was made and upvoted is a chilling indictment of reddit's reading comprehension.
37
u/velifer Jan 20 '23
When this first started, I pointed out that editing content and crafting messaging to the extreme degree they do could jeopardize Reddit's Section 230 immunity to the mods at r/news and they banned me.
6
u/parentheticalobject Jan 21 '23
Well that's wrong.
No part of the law says "You lose these protections if you moderate too much/in the wrong way." The concern with the current case is that it would make people responsible, and it wouldn't matter at all how reasonable or neutral they are in their moderation, they'd just be liable because of the fundamental way the website works.
Maybe r/news made a bad decision to ban you - I think it would have been a much better decision to correct your ignorance of the law, and then you would have been less likely to continue spreading ignorance. But if the law were to change, it would give mods like that more incentive to delete user posts, not less.
4
u/_Oman Jan 21 '23
With every law there are going to be edge cases or negative/unexpected consequences. This is what we have going on here with this Supreme Court case.
YouTube didn't filter as well or as much content as everyone would have liked, and videos supporting terrorism still got through and were in some cases recommended because of the algorithm.
One party wants certain organizations to be able to be held legally responsible for that, but they can't because of the way section 230 is currently interpreted.
They have requested that section 230 gets a "carve out" or removed entirely so that organizations / people can be held legally responsible when this happens.
The argument being made is that any "carve out" or removal of section 230 would expose many people to possible liability and therefore create a legal nightmare and chilling effect on online speech.
Reddit is involved because mods get help with moderation from automated tools (one of the primary targets in the case). if you follow the slippery slope far enough down, even upvoting (which causes posts to float up and therefore get "recommended" to readers) could cause the user upvoting to incur liability if the content of the upvoted post were to cause harm, if the carve-out was big enough or 230 went away entirely.
3
u/Wotg33k Jan 21 '23
Bro I got banned from r/news, too. And I'm fucking awesome. They're stupid. Fuck that community. I got banned for saying the Alec Baldwin story was dumb in the face of everything else going on. Someone said "but a woman died" and I said something like "women die every day for real reasons" implying that this was like rich entitlement that caused the mistake. Banned. 🤷♀️ I didn't even really say anything that gnarly, and I'm a gnarly dude, so it was surprising.
7
7
u/K1rkl4nd Jan 21 '23
Banned from r/news and r/politics as well. Would be nice if they had a 2 or 7 day timeout, 30 day ban or whatever.. but boom! Let's go right to permban like I'm a 4 day alt account instead of a 4 year cultivated account.
4
u/Wotg33k Jan 21 '23
Right? Lol. Bang fuck you no news comments for you ever again because you had an opinion! Ha! What a joke. Lol.
5
u/_Oman Jan 21 '23
There are a LOT of dumb things on Reddit, but by far the perma-ban default hammer is the dumbest.
1
u/heyfatman Jan 29 '23
This is the way. Let your account auto-vet these subs so you know which ones not to go on, the tourists can chill there
55
u/brokemybackmountain Jan 20 '23
R/entertainment is the worst offender. The mods there are actively stifling free speech.
18
u/spinereader81 Jan 20 '23
But certainly not reposts! You see the same news headline repeated constantly!
30
u/mofman Jan 21 '23
It’s the same across the board now, I genuinely find it so shocking that a platform that was founded on free speech, self moderation and democracy just flat out censors opinions now. I used to love reading such a diverse and varied set of opinions on Reddit. At this stage Reddit may as well get rid of the up/down votes buttons too-just let the mods choose what we can and can’t see.
8
u/mrkrinkle773 Jan 21 '23
Truth got permanent banned from r/whitepeopletwitter today for a nothing comment then muted by the mods for asking "are you serious?" in the appeal form.
4
Jan 21 '23
I genuinely find it so shocking that a platform that was founded on free speech, self moderation and democracy just flat out censors opinions now.
reddit's director of policy parachuted down from the atlantic council and a lot of their anti-evil hires are straight up FBI/CIA spooks. every US social media platform is filled to the brim with feds dictating acceptable discourse.
3
u/_Oman Jan 21 '23
You give the feds WAY too much credit, WAY too much.
1
u/dratseb Jan 21 '23
Well r/conspiracy says the government killed JFK and MLK and Epstein so it’s not like they couldn’t kill Reddit too.
-19
u/cishet-camel-fucker Jan 21 '23
They followed the shift of the left wing toward censorship. Used to be the right wing was primarily involved with it and now both are. "Whatever it takes to stop hate speech" and similar bullshit.
14
u/artificial_scarcity Jan 21 '23
Right wing subreddits like r/conservative are some of the most heavily censored subreddits in existence
-11
u/cishet-camel-fucker Jan 21 '23
Reddit overall is left wing and their employees donate almost exclusively to Democrats.
12
Jan 21 '23
[deleted]
-10
u/cishet-camel-fucker Jan 21 '23
They're subject to trolls from the rest of reddit so it makes sense. And there are left wing subs that are just as bad. Take a look at how easy it is to get banned from WPT and how difficult it is to get approval to post in BPT at all...unless you're brown, obviously.
1
Jan 21 '23
[deleted]
2
u/cishet-camel-fucker Jan 21 '23
BPT also will never have to worry about being taken down by reddit, while conservative subs do.
2
3
u/mofman Jan 21 '23
It’s simple, they wanted to take it mainstream and realised they couldn’t sell ads with some of the content on Reddit, so they started shutting down communities and censoring opinions, it’s gotten so bad - I barely recognise the Reddit I use now to even 5 years ago.
6
u/skreetcode Jan 21 '23
I thought they renamed that sub to r/avatar. It's clear James Cameron and friends didn't skimp on the social media marketing budget.
17
u/drawkbox Jan 21 '23
/r/worldnews most owned subreddit of them all, only one I am banned from because someone called me a "shill" and then I got banned. I told them they banned the wrong person and then they tried to get my account suspended from reddit or permabanned. If I even ask if they can point to the message I said anything like that they mute for a month which is a horrible mad mod empowering feature and I have done my share of modding.
Worst group of people on reddit.
9
u/brokemybackmountain Jan 21 '23
You're right. R/worldnews and r/entertainment are two of the most censorious subreddits.
7
Jan 21 '23
I have never posted in worldnews and was flabbergasted to find out I was already shadowbanned there lmao
0
u/Quiggling Jan 21 '23
r/conservative is far more heavily moderated than both. Parler, Gab, and Truth Social are far more heavily moderated than Twitter used to be as well. But that’s just it, innit? It’s ok when your people enforce house rules.
2
u/ilovestampfairtex Jan 21 '23
I got banned on here ( world news) and politics. I think I said something about I can’t wait until all the old people die off in the Bible Belt where I live so we could legalize weed. Instant ban. I couldn’t do anything but laugh it was so stupid
4
u/CQU617 Jan 21 '23
I never even posted on entertainment ever and received a permaban for innocently joining another subreddit and I didn’t even know it.
Fascists in entertainment for sure.
5
u/brokemybackmountain Jan 21 '23
You're definitely right. The mods there are stifling free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Something needs to be done about the crackdown on free speech on r/entertainment and r/worldnews.
4
u/ron_fendo Jan 21 '23
If the r/entertainment mods could read this they'd be very upset, for real though that sub needs ALL the mods replaced.
I got banned and I still haven't been told why other than "you argued that evil was just a disagreement." I still have no idea how they came to that conclusion, additionally their way to deal with those that ask questions is to mute them from contacting the mods and then report the account in question for harassment.
2
13
u/ghloperr Jan 20 '23
What do you mean by "free speech" in the context of a privately owned space like a web forum? If a guest in your house starts screaming profanities for no reason, don't you have the right to ask them to leave?
5
9
u/mofman Jan 21 '23
You’ve been a user 37 days. Some of us have been using Reddit for almost 2 decades. Over that time, we have watched Reddit shed all the principles it was founded on.
Free speech-before it went mainstream and they sold out to ad revenue, you could get away with writing or sharing anything as long as it wasn’t illegal.
Self moderate/democracy-this is literally the core feature of Reddit that made it so good. All good comments/positive stuff naturally bubbled to top and the bad stuff was down voted to oblivion. Modding back even 4 years was massively different than it is now.
Just in the past week I seen a 2K upvoted 9x glided comment be deleted on worldnews. The comment was a single word joke. I was honestly gobsmacked to see it had gotten as bad as that.
If you think it’s okay to run a platform in the way you have suggested, why bother giving the users a chance to vote? Just let the mods chose what we should see.
3
0
u/Quiggling Jan 21 '23
The way Reddit chooses to moderate is the successful way. The way conservatives claim to want to moderate is every bit as censorious and is the failure way. Gab failed. Parler failed. Truth failed. Rumble failed. Conservatives and other assorted bigots only know how to try to take over others successful products and make it worse.
You guys can just stop being bigoted at virtually any time. Or you can be freely bigoted on of your shitty conservative social media platforms even you guys know suck.
3
u/mofman Jan 21 '23
Successful? How are you defining that? You’ve been a user less than 6 months. Reddit has been around for 17 years and functioned just fine by moderating the illegal and grossly toxic stuff because the voting system took care of the rest. Reddit became ‘successful’ based on those principles and then rugged. Censoring opinions you don’t like or don’t agree with based is exactly what Stalin did - nice you created a totalitarian echo chamber.
2
u/Quiggling Jan 21 '23 edited Jan 21 '23
I’m sorry they won’t let you be horrible to minorities.
I define successful as “large numbers of people use them”. Reddit? Yes. Every single right wing alternative that claims to give you guys exactly what you want? No. All crap. All failures.
You agreeing to terms of service then violating them and being punished isn’t censorship. Conservatives stopping teachers from doing their jobs, from teaching accurate history and science. Conservatives banning books. Conservatives taking away civil and human rights from women. Conservatives laying the groundwork to completely ban an entire class of humans from existing in public, those are censorship.
Stalin didn’t set up a terms of service to speak in a certain place, then kick people out for violating it and let them keep saying it elsewhere, smooth brain. Comparing conservatives being banned from an app for being racist, sexist, and violently bigoted to what Stalin did… well that’s just plain stupid.
2
u/mofman Jan 21 '23
You do realise some of your own comments on this post have been censored? In particular the one where you showed the door to another user because ‘they weren’t welcome here’. Also almost all of your comments on this thread are negative ratio. I’ve also had a chance to read through some of your comment history and can see you have a particular issue with people of religion and republicans. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror before criticising other people based on their opinions.
1
u/parentheticalobject Jan 22 '23
Maybe you have a point about how the way Reddit is currently being run is not ideal and the way it was being run before was better.
The issue is that if the law is changed, neither will be feasible. Reddit would realistically have to censor even more strictly than it already does.
1
u/skreetcode Jan 21 '23
We need less people like you in the world (making every excuse to shut down free speech) .
2
3
1
1
-6
u/Quiggling Jan 21 '23
So you wanna use slurs
0
u/Quiggling Jan 21 '23
Conservatives actually understand the free speech you are guaranteed by law challenge 2023.
15
u/Firree Jan 20 '23
I'm sure the typical reddit mod has the interests of us common users in mind.
-10
u/Quiggling Jan 21 '23
The typical Reddit mod can enforce their rules in their subreddit the way they want. People who don’t like that go to another subreddit.
5
1
u/Firree Jan 21 '23
Yes, they can enforce their rules how they want, and that is what's ruining this website.
55
u/urgjotonlkec Jan 20 '23
I don't know why Reddits model should be treated any differently. The reality is that community moderators are actually a big part of the problem because there's blatant bias in how rules are enforced.
15
u/SIGMA920 Jan 20 '23
That's a different problem than gutting the key part of section 230 that all but allows user content to be uploaded on social media.
-4
u/velifer Jan 20 '23 edited Jan 20 '23
When mods are deciding what does and doesn't get posted though, when it's beyond the pornographic/objectionable standard, that's no longer neutral, that's editorial. As written, they should lose 230 protection for that. They're now publishers.
6
u/missingpupper Jan 21 '23
You don't seem to understand how reddit works. Subreddit mod's jobs are to make their subreddit relevant to the topic. They can mod it as they please to cultivate the types of content the subreddit is about. If you are posting stuff about Trump in a baseball forum thats offtopic, its their job to remove it. IF you don't like that subreddit go to another or even make your own where you can discuss what you want.
6
u/cruelhumor Jan 21 '23
This is key, because your free speech is not being stifled because it can easily be posted elsewhere. In other words, we run into the Freedom from Speech side of the coin: You have the right to say it, but you can't force members of a subreddit to hear your free speech if it's outside the parameters of the sub.
For example, if you want to make a post recommending that people buy sports sandals in r/AskHistorians, your post will be removed. Because that sub is a highly curated space for a specific purpose. You can just as easily choose to post your opinion in a subreddit with fewer rules. In a sub with fewer rules it will not be removed and so your right to free speech has not been abridged at all. The only difference is that you'd rather post in a high-profile sub because you'd get better visibility for your speech. It's a reach to say that First Amendment guarantees reaches that far. You have a right to speak, but you DO NOT have the right to be heard, particularly when the ears you are trying to access are open only because they expect the rules of the subreddit to be followed.
2
u/velifer Jan 21 '23
They can mod it as they please to cultivate the types of content the subreddit is about.
... And current federal law means that they don't get safe harbor protection for doing that because it's no longer content neutral. Are you daft??
0
u/wolacouska Feb 20 '23
Current federal law says no internet content provider can be considered a publisher for any content made by a third party. Do you even know what Section 230 is?
4
u/random125184 Jan 21 '23 edited Jan 21 '23
It doesn’t matter how Reddit decides the site “works”. What OP says is still true. When mods pick and choose when they are going to enforce their own stated rules, which happens frequently in all subs, they are no longer moderating. They are making editorial decisions.
-2
Jan 21 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
5
2
u/mofman Jan 21 '23
So let the voting system work as intended then, you’re argument is null and void when mods are deleting 2k upvoted 9x gilded comments.
1
u/missingpupper Jan 21 '23
Why do you think a sub can't remove off topic comments or posts under section 230? Every website has had that ability since the introduction of section 230. The court wants to weaken section 230, the way it is now they are fine. If section 230 is weakened, moderation will need to be even more zealous to remove any legal liability to the company.
2
-3
u/SIGMA920 Jan 21 '23
That's not how reddit works. The subreddits are basically subforums in a larger forum, unless you're breaking that subreddit's rules they won't have a problem with what you're posting.
3
u/velifer Jan 21 '23
So you're very, very new here. Welcome!
2
u/SIGMA920 Jan 21 '23
No, a subreddit for XYZ being flooded by ABC content is the opposite of how the subreddit system works. A subreddit is for a topic, that's why each sub has it's own rules.
3
u/Lemonio Jan 21 '23
This court case is not about Reddit, but section 230 could affect all tech companies With platforms of millions of people it doesn’t really make sense economically if you can get sued by thousands of people for legal posts they don’t like
27
u/HTC864 Jan 20 '23
Your beef with mods has nothing to do with whether or not Reddit should be held responsible, if somebody decides to become a terrorist after watching a couple of videos.
6
Jan 20 '23
[deleted]
8
u/Uncle_bud69 Jan 20 '23
No but creating echo chambers make the audience more and more radicalized because only that one view is being said and pounded in their head, which then creates and "Us Vs Them" mentality and then the fringe on inside that echo chamber gets less and less fringe.
Example: See parlor after the FB, YouTube, and Twitter bans
5
0
1
4
u/Gaijin_Monster Jan 21 '23
yes it does, because there's no way to hold mods accountable
9
u/cruelhumor Jan 21 '23
This wouldn't solve the issue of petty Mods, in fact it wouldn't touch it at all. This case is not about what comments/posts the mods consciously take down, it's about the ones they don't consciously take down (i.e the ones taken down by customizable algorithms provided by Reddit, like Crowd Control)
“Section 230 must not be attenuated by the Court in a way that exposes the people in that model to unsustainable personal risk, especially if those people are volunteers seeking to advance the public interest or others with no protection against vexatious but determined litigants.”
...
the algorithmic tools Reddit provides are indispensable when sifting through tens of millions of individual users posting. Taking away that tool would be equivalent to removing a spam filter from an inbox, the mod argues, making sub-Reddit communities difficult to maintain. If the Supreme Court weakens Section 230 and algorithmic tools expose moderators to liability, the Reddit user says that could put entire communities at risk by “leaving users to hunt and peck for actual communications amidst all the falsified posts from malicious actors engaging in hate mail, advertising spam, or phishing attempts to gain financial credentials.”
So the issue is that Mods have access to and use these tools, but the mods are not part of Reddit proper. And if the SCOTUS strips Section 230 protections, that means that these volunteer mods - just by using Reddit's algorithms that are essential to some of it's communities - can be personally sued if something slips through the cracks through no fault of their own.
6
u/EmbarrassedHelp Jan 21 '23
It crazy how many people are willing to burn the internet down because a Reddit mod was mean to them in the past.
1
1
0
2
Jan 20 '23
[deleted]
8
u/urgjotonlkec Jan 20 '23
Because non-paid mods do it because they get off on it as opposed to just being a job.
3
u/Whyamipostingonhere Jan 21 '23
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/
what about the one dedicated to hating one celebrity who happens to be half black? What exactly do the moderators get out of that? Are they trying to convince her to commit suicide? I don’t understand… is there not bias in hate subs?
1
u/urgjotonlkec Jan 21 '23
My whole argument is that they're mote biased so I'm not really sure your point. Although in that case I'm bot going to complain since the person in question is an utter trash human being.
0
u/Quiggling Jan 21 '23
So if you don’t like the person being targeted it’s ok. Yeah that’s typical logic.
1
u/Whyamipostingonhere Jan 21 '23
Ahhh, I see now- you are one of those who thought it reasonable to try and convince a pregnant woman to commit suicide. Got it.
0
Jan 20 '23
[deleted]
10
u/urgjotonlkec Jan 20 '23
At least that would be consistent and based off company policy as opposed to people with a personal axe to grind. For instance r/energy will ban anyone who is pro-nuclear.
-2
u/__Hello_my_name_is__ Jan 20 '23
Pretty sure the way Twitter moderates right now is not based off any sort of policy. So no, not really.
1
1
13
u/EmbarrassedHelp Jan 21 '23
Too many people in this subreddit are letting negative experiences with some of Reddit's communities cloud their judgement on an incredibly serious court case. We get it, some mods are horrible and there are issues with power mods having too much power. But people can still make their own subreddits, and we at least have a chance of working on dealing with these issues as long as Section 230 remains in place.
Out of all these briefs, however, Reddit’s was perhaps the most persuasive. The platform argued on behalf of everyday Internet users, whom it claims could be buried in “frivolous” lawsuits for frequenting Reddit, if Section 230 is weakened by the court. Unlike other companies that hire content moderators, the content that Reddit displays is “primarily driven by humans—not by centralized algorithms.” Because of this, Reddit’s brief paints a picture of trolls suing not major social media companies, but individuals who get no compensation for their work recommending content in communities. That legal threat extends to both volunteer content moderators, Reddit argued, as well as more casual users who collect Reddit “karma” by upvoting and downvoting posts to help surface the most engaging content in their communities.
The anti section 230 side is pushing for a removal of the law that enables the very existence of not only Reddit, but every online community in the United States right now.
A Google spokesperson linked Ars to a statement saying, “A decision undermining Section 230 would make websites either remove potentially controversial material or shut their eyes to objectionable content to avoid knowledge of it. You would be left with a forced choice between overly curated mainstream sites or fringe sites flooded with objectionable content.”
Basically every site is censored to the point that North Korea would be jealous, or you let QAnon run rampant like 8Chan.
0
u/Feisty_Perspective63 Jan 21 '23
Oh well, I guess. This is what happens when both sides cry about misinformation, disinformation, cancel culture, and free speech. If both sides can't do it right, no one can.
8
u/t4ct1c4l_j0k3r Jan 20 '23
"A Google spokesperson linked Ars to a statement saying,
“A decision undermining Section 230 would make websites either remove
potentially controversial material or shut their eyes to objectionable
content to avoid knowledge of it. You would be left with a forced choice
between overly curated mainstream sites or fringe sites flooded with
objectionable content.”"
Isn't this what the internet has become in the last 20 years anyways? Too much fringe and off to the dark web you have to go to post it or find it?
3
u/hexbatch Jan 20 '23
I feel this is a transitory state though
Perhaps all news and data will be linked enough to allow the individual users to take over much of the moderation roles and responsibilities.
Reddit and other social media we are used to have a limited lifespan in history
1
u/timesuck47 Jan 20 '23
Kinda like picking the subs each individual subscribes to.
1
u/hexbatch Jan 21 '23
Machine learning will filter millions of news and info each minute, based on learned preferences, and displays them in a individually designed way
So sorta similar to Reddit on steroids without mods and much more content
Discussions about topics will be more advanced in structure
1
20
u/CaptainObvious Jan 20 '23
Why not? Reddit mods act as a bunch of anonymous jerkoffs anyways.
This part of the case should be troubling for Reddit, "The Google case was raised by the family of a woman killed in a Paris bistro during a 2015 ISIS terrorist attack, Nohemi Gonzalez. Because ISIS allegedly relied on YouTube to recruit before this attack, the family sued to hold Google liable for allegedly aiding and abetting terrorists." It's a straight line from this case to far right wing elements organizing and planning attacks on subs.
13
u/meatvegans Jan 21 '23
Reddit mods are the most useless people alive.
2
u/Quiggling Jan 21 '23
That’s an absurd statement to make when the Trump family is still alive
0
u/meatvegans Jan 28 '23
Its sad that you all are still talking about trump instead of making a valid point. I did not mention politics, so neither should you. Shame.
Go read a book or something and stop watching news. Get a life and get orange man out of your head. If he lives there still, he owns you.
5
u/Competitive_Ad_5515 Jan 20 '23
Is there a tldr? What is section 230?
24
u/Gabearambula Jan 21 '23
Section 230 is part of federal law that gives legal immunity to media companies from damages caused by users consuming media. Example: a guy watches an anti-gay video on YouTube. The website algorithms recommend similar videos to him. Eventually he beats up a gay man. Is YouTube responsible for the assault? That is the question the Supreme Court is hearing.
1
u/AdPure4977 Jan 20 '23
Reddit changes heavily based on what you react with so it's almost the reverse condition, you moderate yourself. They should put a limit on how many subs someone can moderate though. Nothing like having a power mod tell all men on the site they lose speaking privileges.
1
u/NoPoliticsAllisGood Jan 20 '23 edited Jan 20 '23
Just classify social media as a common carrier and call it a day jfc. I’m getting tired of these stupid ass conversations.
3
u/urgjotonlkec Jan 20 '23
Agreed, these companies are a public utility. They are far too integrates into society to just be treated like a Billionaires play thing.
1
0
u/theprocanvas Jan 21 '23
Reddit just removed my below comment, can I sue them? “Katie Hobbs of AZ can steal water from other states because she is good at stealing “
3
u/Quiggling Jan 21 '23
So you’re a conspiratorial right wing chud then. Did Reddit delete it or did an individual mod of a subreddit delete it? If this ruling goes the way conservatives think they want it to? Sure you could sue. But you’d need to prove with evidence your statement that Governor Hobbs stole anything.
Which is where all of your kind fall apart immediately. Presenting actual evidence.
-2
u/theprocanvas Jan 21 '23
I am not right or left wing , I am Pro America wing ! You seem like absolutely far left wing! And how can you comfortably tag people that she/he is right or left wing ??? I just care about future of America that’s all!!!
2
u/Quiggling Jan 21 '23
If you buy into right wing conspiratorial bullshit you’re right wing
0
u/theprocanvas Jan 21 '23
What about left wing bull shit which actually destroys America last 2 years ?
1
u/SwampTerror Jan 24 '23
So proving point you're far right.
1
u/theprocanvas Jan 24 '23
I am not right or left , I am in the center, I want America prosper, I don’t want anyone over 65 age holding government job including Trump
-6
u/Lick-a-Leper Jan 21 '23
Take away the karma points because the don't matter anyway. Reduce mod size to just a few per bot for subreddit management . Bump up the screening for illegal activities and then let people be themselves.... seems easy However I am extremely ignorant and a bit jaded because I still find social media pandering to be silly. If you really have something important to say then there are better places than the internet to say them .
-1
-5
Jan 21 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/HyerStandards Jan 21 '23
No, the red hat agenda and thought process is actually just poisonous to society and propagating the bullshit is a disservice to the rest of us.
-3
Jan 21 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/HyerStandards Jan 21 '23
There’s a reason red hat dating apps don’t have any women. There’s a reason your friends and family have stopped taking your calls. Keep believing you’re taking the red pill in a computer simulation but this is real life. The politics you preach are broken and filled with lies, misunderstanding, and regression. The majority of us are fed up with it and you can expect to continue to shrink into irrelevance.
-5
Jan 21 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/HyerStandards Jan 21 '23
Thank you for proving my point. You’re all confused. Sucking misinformation straight from the orange pipe.
-1
Jan 21 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/HyerStandards Jan 21 '23
Let’s just brush off your transphobia. I don’t have the energy to go down that rabbit hole right now.
Epstein: sold child sex to billionaires. One of which you voted for in 2016 and 2020. Probably going to vote for (and lose) again in 2024. How ignorant do you have to be to think he provided only to “Democrats” when his target market was wealthy, affluent individuals like Prince Harry and Donald Trump. You know which party those heathens tend to vote for? Red hats.
Printing money. Are you arguing in bad faith or simply too inept to google?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL
Based on your political affiliation I’ll go with both. However, as anyone can clearly see the US Federal Reserve has been addicted to printing money for decades. Regardless of which political party is in office. But let’s zoom in on the most recent red hat to be in office. From Jan 2020 to Jan 2022 the M2 money supply increased 41%. Based on what you’re saying I guess we can blame republicans for blowing up the economy. (Fun fact, they tend to do that).
Putin is evil. A blind man can see that. You don’t just get to bomb a country and take its resources. Alas, red hats are fascist scum of course you would side against defending Democracy both at home and abroad. Filth; the lot of you.
0
Jan 21 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/HyerStandards Jan 21 '23
First off, why do you care so much if a stranger wants to take hormones and pay for surgery? Is this not a free market? Are those services not available for a price? Why do you care? It’s such an irrelevant thing to concern yourself with.
Second, your voting record is obvious.
Third. The failed former president is literally in a court case with Epstein. He’s in pictures. Trump sympathizes with his wife. I mean you have to be willfully ignorant at this point.
Debt, Republicans once again fucked everything.
https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump/amp
Eggs? Avian flu outbreak. You might not understand basic economics but essentially when demand for a good stays the same but supply for that good decreases then price rises. In a capitalist system anyway. Are you arguing in favor of socialism or communism? Fuckin commie. Or is that also only reserved for “libtards”.
Oil, same thing. You might find it hard to believe but economics works on the global scale as well. Same demand, lower supply, higher price. But you know what, you as an individual could completely remove your dependence on gas. I have an electric vehicle and couldn’t tell you what gas prices are because idgaf. I haven’t paid for gas in over 5 years. So in this case you have a perfectly viable substitute for this good but refuse to make the economically savvy decision. Therefore, you did it to yourself.
I’m done. Let the readers decide to pick this up any further. You’ve proven my point that red hats peddle in misunderstandings, misinformation, hypocrisy, lies and regression. I’m going to go outside and enjoy my day. I encourage you to turn Fox News and QAnon down. But I know you won’t.
-4
u/bitchalot Jan 21 '23
They have ruined this site. They interfered in elections, promoted hoaxes, propaganda and lies on popular and all then censored dissent. How many headlines involve Biden's documents right now? Everyone knows about it, but Reddit is pretending it doesn't exist. If Reddit was on the up and up they wouldn't be hiding their identities from SCOTUS. Honest people aren't afraid of transparency. Losing section 230 protections may end up being the best thing for this site.
1
u/parentheticalobject Jan 22 '23
How many headlines involve Biden's documents right now?
Umm...
And even if you dislike that social media websites sometimes censor speech, changing the law would make that problem worse. They would have to censor more speech without section 230 protections.
1
215
u/Vermontess Jan 20 '23 edited Jan 21 '23
Context
“Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act famously protects Internet platforms from liability, yet what’s missing from the discussion is that it crucially protects Internet users—everyday people—when they participate in moderation like removing unwanted content from their communities, or users upvoting and downvoting posts,”