all 46 comments

[–]Iam1ofMany 44 insightful - 9 fun44 insightful - 8 fun45 insightful - 9 fun -  (14 children)

Reddit's statement is bullshit... the problem isn't the sub reddits policing themselves, that part is fine. Kick or censor whoever you want on a sub. But Reddit has taken it upon itself to remove entire communities on it's own stating they are hate groups and shit like that. That is where the problem lies. Reddit doesn't get to dictate to other people what speech is a certain type of speech. If it is illegal speech then the authorities can be contacted but other than that, eat a dick Reddit!

[–]iraelmossadreddit 13 insightful - 4 fun13 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

the changed the algorithm for how the donald gets on the front page before they banned it too. kind of like magnora did to the icepoisodon sub... now the "front page" is not really even a thing anymore. They auto show you posts based on your location and browsing history.

[–]HegeMoney 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

kind of like magnora did to the icepoisodon sub... now the "front page" is not really even a thing anymore.

This is an unfair interpretation of how things developed with IP.

M7 made the change with IP, because hundreds of IP refugees transitioned to Saidit after Reddit banned IP.

The IP refugee population outnumbered the active member base of the Saidit community by many multiples.

They basically took over.

Practically every minimally significant IP post had dozens of upvotes, at a time when a post with 20 upvotes was a big deal in any other sub.

The IP leadership were good guys, and they recognized the impact on the site.

It wasn't admin aggression, or specific censorship (other than what was externally imposed by the server companies).

IP leadership worked with M7, and the IP community was overall pretty cool about it.

The IP community has some clever, persistent, and creative characters.

They knew how to mess things up and create a lot of extra work for M7; if/when they wanted to.

Refugees are generally grateful for the accommodations that they receive from their hosts.

It's human nature.

There will always be a few bad actors who behave in an unacceptable manner, but the number of bad actors is trivial in comparison to the overall refugee population.

[–]iraelmossadreddit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

just to be clear I wasn't saying the front page on here isn't a thing anymore. that quote kind of makes it look like that. on reddit it's called "top" now. I really wish I could tell how many real upvotes they have. edit: nvm it's like that here too. w/e Ill stop using site then.

[–]slushpilot 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Exactly. Their response is a straw man.

[–]Iam1ofMany 14 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

I forgot to mention the other part, they said they were a small private company. I think, last I looked they were worth 3 billion, b for billion. I hope that has actually went down since last I looked but I fear it hasn't.

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

Worth that in theory.

I doubt they have anything near 3 bil in physical assets.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

only if it's cuz soon as they get cash they spend it but they surely get billions from advertisers, govts, rich assholes that want to use the site to manipulate opinions

[–][deleted]  (1 child)


    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    no shit sherlock

    [–]jet199 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Nope. Their market worth will be mostly based on hype, estimates of potential profit and the estimated value of all their user data if they were to sell it (which is the real value). They are definitely not getting in billions in advertising.

    Really people need business education.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    direct opposite, the hype is years ago and proven, millions use it, it's not on facebook or instagram level but it's there, definitely getting billions between advertising, letting corporations ban certain wrongthink, letting shills run around etc.

    [–]HegeMoney 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Good point.

    It could all be over in a weekend if public perception turned against them.

    They would still have their bots to jerk them off.

    [–]Trajan 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

    ‘The front page of the Internet’, says Reddit.

    [–]theoracle 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    and notabug calls itself "the back page of the internet" lol

    [–]Canbot 15 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

    Let's be realistic here, the FCC is as corrupt as they get. Did you already forget how they literally went against nearly unanimous public wishes to protect net neutrality? They literally committed fraud the last time they said they would collect public comments. There was no accountability to anyone. They were caught red handed being as corrupt as can be, and they got away with it completely. They will do what they do, and there is nothing we can do about it.

    [–]Extract 8 insightful - 7 fun8 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 7 fun -  (4 children)



    [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

    also gulp gulp gulp mmmm soy

    [–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Really, really annoying.

    [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)


    [–]m68k 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Thank you for the TL;DR. :3

    [–]Tarrock 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

    If they open lawsuits, I plan to sue them for taking down my sub r/gulpingsoylent and starting a class-action lawsuit for s/cringeanarchy

    [–]Nanner 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

    While censorship and reddit sucks, this sounds like a horrible idea. If sites moderated and then lost their protections and were held liable for user content, then it would kill free speech by killing all of the user-generated content platforms.

    Sites that are moderating to the point to where it is biased very much suck, but I think that helping sites such as saidit exist, and letting the users to make the choice to find a better community that doesn't suppress content unfairly is the better route.

    Otherwise, there will be no sites.

    [–]yayblueberries 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

    I would be okay with no sites at this point. Social media has become extremely destructive in general to society.

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

    so stop moderating

    [–]theoracle 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    even better make it optional. Best of all worlds.

    [–]theoracle 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    The solution to moderation problems is optional moderation

    Allow people to choose who moderates for them or even allow them to have no moderation if they want. The tagging system is more complicated but alternatively you can simply have a button to turn moderation off.

    [–]flugegeheimen 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

    If sites moderated and then lost their protections and were held liable for user content, then it would kill free speech by killing all of the user-generated content platforms.

    Because the God doesn't allow to exist platforms where users can choose whatever content they are allowed to see without self-imposed moderators's "help" or something?

    and letting the users to make the choice to find a better community that doesn't suppress content unfairly

    I'd rather have a community that doesn't make censoring choices for me. It's not like it requires some rocket science, even saidit (with introducing of "block user" feature) could already be one if /u/magnora could afford to have a complete hands-off approach.

    [–]Nanner 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    A site would turn to trash fast without some sort of moderation. Also, do you really think that the true intent is to protect you from censorship?

    This will kill free speech by killing all of the platforms.

    Magnora censored and banned that Nazi dude the other day. Saidit would fall too.

    [–]flugegeheimen 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    A site would turn to trash fast without some sort of moderation.

    "some sort of moderation" also includes self-moderation and, miraculously, it also doesn't make site liable for user content because a user does it for himself rather than site on someone's behalf.

    This will kill free speech by killing all of the platforms.

    You are basically saying "forcing to make a choice between having a free speech or die will kill free speech" which doesn't make much sense. Some platforms will definitely stay censoring shitholes while they can and then drop the user-generated content completely (e.g. certain SJW propaganda rags already dropped comment sections). Okay, this will free some niche and audience for platforms with free speech and encourage it in general.

    Magnora censored and banned that Nazi dude the other day.

    And if he wasn't allowed to do that he could argue with his host that he can't, thus allowing fine gentlemen from IcePoseidon2 to stay.

    [–]Nanner 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    And just hire an army of bots and shills to trash the site. I won't stay in a place like that where I have to sift through a bunch of crap to try and participate. Any posts would would slide off. Who would even stay to self-moderate? A pay processor and/or advertisers could still choose to not do business with whoever.

    You seem to put a lot of trust in the govenment to think that they are trying to help vs trying to control.

    [–]christnmusicreleasesIndependent 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    It's already that.

    [–]theoracle 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    Yes moderation is needed but why make it compulsory or only have one moderation option?

    [–]Nanner 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Sure. Have more than one option, but let the people decide for themselves.

    Do not let government pass laws and gain more control over sites.

    They are not there to protect our rights or freedom of speech, but their own interests.

    [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)


    [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Agreed. I've proposed several times the idea of a community forum review to be judged by our peers regarding problems. But M7 wants to carry that burden and refuses to open up at all or delegate the process. This is a huge problem and potential weakness for SaidIt.

    [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    Block user is a terrible feature. Just build your safe space subs if you must.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Blocking people isn't just about sticking your head in the sand and not having to hear a political opinion you don't like, there's some real nutters online who will harass the everloving shit out of people given half a chance.

    [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Yes that's true. Some people are shills. And sadly, far too often I've seen people called shills where clearly there's no evidence of shillery but only a different opinion. It's made even worse when both are a little nuts and neither is grown up enough to walk away and ignore the other after having made their point.

    I still hate it. I might reconsider if there was a sign "This person blocked you and can't hear what you're saying." Or when one or both users block each other, their user name appears green, opposite to the red "friends".

    [–]throwitaway 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    I'm assuming they won't allow illegal content though right? Most of the subs banned were done for the dumbest reasons.

    [–]suckitreddit 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

    Oh yeah, baby! Time to vote Trump! Suck my dick, Reddit!

    [–]Drewski 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    This would be bad for all online communities, including us. Ending the section 230 protections would have the exact opposite effect on free speech than the order purports to achieve. No matter the purported reasons, removing the protections that platforms have from being liable for what their users post will only result in locking down speech and dissenting opinions.

    Reason TV: Politicians Want to Destroy Section 230, the Internet's First Amendment

    [–]Shadow_Death 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Reddit should have been forced to give up their rights years ago. They have been editing and censoring people's posts for years showing that they can do it and this don't need the protections.

    [–]Antifa 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    "As a small privately owned company."

    That is owned by multi-million Conde Nast, in turn owned my multi-billion Advance Publishing...

    So fucking disingenuous. I'm glad trump intends to fuck these net based speech dictators up the ass.

    [–]SaidOverRed 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Wow, the GEotUS actually did it.

    Now let's see solicitations for large dollar figure lawsuits.