Comment by fweespeech | Hacker News Reader

Comment by fweespeech | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Its pretty clear that they tested out the "remove" option, pushed Ellen Pao out when it got ugly, and are switching to the "Hide" option.

Yishan [ "Not our problem" ] -> Pao [ "Remove" ] -> Spez [ "Hide"]

That seems to the be evolution at the moment, and honestly, I think "Hide" is the right answer. People have a right to avoid content that offends them.

Voat's problem [honestly] is as drama-filled as this transition has been...Voat really isn't offering anything other than "Reddit with more transparency". Assuming Spez doesn't screw this up, I'm not seeing how Voat.co will benefit.

As for vagueness, I'm not surprised...its like the legal definition of Obscenity or Pornography, its a community-tested definition based on social norms. You can't really quantify it the way you can numbers on a spreadsheet or "Marijuana is illegal".

As long as Spez is transparent, communicates effectively, and doesn't come across as arbitrary I think it'll work out fine.

Just for some more context on that, Yishan's comment from yesterday is insightful and very entertaining to be honest:

https://pay.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/conte...

Yishan is pretty clearly biased, but yeah, he is definitely entertaining.

I'm pretty sure Pao's "remove" was going to be a tiny fraction of what will end up hidden and she was closer to Yishan's "Do whatever" position than Huffman will be.

People have a right to avoid content that offends them.

Do they though?

EDIT:

Meant that seriously. Do we have a right to avoid all of the people complaining about discrimination in tech, for example?

I agree, if someone is walking down the street and there's a street preacher who offends them, they have the right to turn the corner, turn around, or tell them off. They don't have the right to stuff the person (metaphorically) in a box out of sight.

The hazy term is "right". Perhaps it means "People [on reddit] have a right to avoid content that offends them."

That's a really good way of putting it. You have the right to walk away or to yell back, but you don't have the right to make them stop talking. That's a really important distinction.

There is a case where a person does not have the option to avoid the speech they find offensive. I think that happens a lot on the Internet.

For example, on Twitter, users are harassed, but short of leaving the service they don't have an easy way to avoid their mentions being cluttered by hate speech. It devalues the service for them and puts hate speech directly in their face. Blocking tools are improving, but people who want to harass others claim such tools are against free speech.

From the sounds of it many subreddits "branched out" onto personal Facebook pages and other places to attack users — to put offensive speech in front of the people who would find it offensive. It complicates the ideal scenario you put forward because while these are public places where anyone can post, there is a malicious intent behind much of the speech. To put that offensive content in front of a person's friends and family in a way that they can't avoid, or have to work to avoid, is very different from reciting that speech in your own private area of the Internet. Yet defence of one is often blurred with defence of the other. How do you stop such hate groups from "branching out" without shutting down the source and being accused of stifling free speech?

It's a nice ideal to say that one person is free to speak while another is free not to listen, but one is able to make a physical (or virtual) location distinctly uncomfortable and scary for another person. This sort of harassment is often defended under the guise of "free speech."

Some people find it uncomfortable and scary whenever anyone disagrees with them. Or will claim to. And if free speech doesn't include the right to say things that other people disagree with then it's meaningless.

My claim is that there is a line between free speech and harassment that some will attempt to blur by claiming that prohibition of the latter precludes the former.

To clarify, are you are suggesting that some people are harassed more easily than others, or lie about being harassed? I don't believe that happens very often.

> And if free speech doesn't include the right to say things that other people disagree with then it's meaningless.

It's not about disagreement. I find it very hard to believe that people are making false claims of harassment because they simply disagree with others.

> To clarify, are you are suggesting that some people are harassed more easily than others, or lie about being harassed? I don't believe that happens very often.

I'm not an expert on psychology and wouldn't want to speculate on other people's internal mental states. But certainly I have seen people claim that they feel harassed in situations that are, to my mind, a million miles away from harassment; that seem to me like nothing more than simple disagreement.

In the context of a site like Reddit? Yeah.

The division of subreddits mostly handles that already and is likely a good chunk of its original purpose. Narrow, interest-based groups. Its just that on steroids really.

Free speech usually means you're free to say what you like and I'm free to killfile you if I want. So yes, you have the freedom to control what you hear. I think you agree if that's the definition of "avoiding content that offends them" - when Ann is yelling stuff Bob can put his fingers in his ears, but can't cover Ann's mouth nor Catalina's ears.

> when Ann is yelling stuff Bob can put his fingers in his ears, but can't cover Ann's mouth nor Catalina's ears

I really really wish more people would get this. Too many people in Bob's position try to go beyond just coving their own ears. And that extends beyond Reddit.

That's because a lot of people aren't just talking, they're building cultures that will take action against others.

Quite right--in fact, I love your analogy. :)

On places like Reddit (or HN, for that matter) though that would suggest hiding users you don't like or avoiding subforums you find disgusting...not griping to management to remove them for you and everyone else!

I like that analogy as far as you go, but I think that there's a third component to remember: Bob doesn't have to hang out with Catalina if she wants to spend her time listening to Ann. (This misapprehension is generally borne of a complete misunderstanding of the First Amendment and the idea of "freedom of speech".)

If one user is offended by the rantings of a another user, they should be able to block that user universally across the site if they so wish. As long as this is at the user level I see no problem.

I'm kind of amazed that reddit doesn't have a "killfile" or "ignore" feature after 10 years. It's one of the simplest things in the world, and for some other discussion sites that don't offer it I've built it myself as a User Script.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com