It's one thing for a mod in a forum to ban someone, as it sometimes only represents the opinions of that mod, and maybe be backed by rules (and trends)
It's another thing for social media to do it. although they are all private companies, they remain a very global big force, that do not have reach only in the US, but are global and can do the same and affect many countries and politics across the globe.
Soon, if not already happening, politics will be pushed to one side or the other.
And it won't be for stopping hate speech, it will and it is so that they can make even more money.
On the bright side, I am an optimistic person, and since they dared block the president of the USA, maybe be they might not flinch anymore at blocking pedophiles, hitmen, terrorists, and all sorts of vile users on their platforms.
For the same reason that the government banning something is worse than when a private company does it.
Because one party has way more power and ability to actually ban someone.
Kicking someone out of my house is less powerful/effective at preventing speech than being banned by a subreddit, which is less effective than the website banning you, which is less effective than a bunch of websites banning you, which is less effective than the government banning it.
The more effective a ban is, the more careful we have to be about it. Because if the government bans you, that is going to have very significantly different consequences than me not letting a friend in my house.
No, the government banning something is meaningful because they have the monopoly on violence. Reddit admins banning a sub and reddit mods banning a user is the exact same thing, it's just moderation of a private forum. Forcing private companies to publish pro-genocide speech, for example, is anti-freedom, not pro. If we're going to force reddit to publish pro-holocaust speech then all moderation everywhere must be banned as well, including on this very forum, to be consistent. I for one think this forum benefits greatly from active moderation, however.
> is meaningful because they have the monopoly on violence.
Yes, they are more effectively able to censor it. Correct, thats my point.
> is the exact same thing
I described specifically what the difference is. The difference between them is that one is more effective than the other. Do you at all recognize how different methods of censorship can be more or less effective than others?
For example, would you seriously argue that every single grocery store in the world, banning all people who want to raise their taxes, is the same thing as a random person kicking a friend out of their house?
Obviously, the two things would be different. Even though the grocery stores are private businesses, there would obviously be a problem with them making it so people who want to raise their taxes are no longer able to buy food.
>I described specifically what the difference is. The difference between them is that one is more effective than the other. Do you at all recognize how different methods of censorship can be more or less effective than others?
Of course some censorship is more effective than others, but the idea that banning a subreddit is morally wrong because it's somehow "more effective" (by some metric) than banning a user (which apparently is OK?) makes absolutely no sense to me at all.
>For example, would you seriously argue that every single grocery store in the world, banning all people who want to raise their taxes, is the same thing as a random person kicking a friend out of their house?
Reddit doesn't have a global monopoly on internet forums though. Websites like the Daily Stormer still exist. Your analogy is not really applicable to this case. And even if Daily Stormer didn't exist, private individuals have never been legally obliged to signal boost and publish hate speech at any point since the US was founded that I am aware of. That would, ironically, violate the 1st amendment.
If the size of influence of the entity limiting speech is the issue, then would a mod of a very large subreddit banning a user be worse than a comparatively smaller, private social network de-platforming a user?
I guess my point is more so where do you draw the line? Legislatively-speaking? By the size of the community?
It's one thing to my favorite dictatorial mod to do one thing, but a reddit admin, to do another thing?
You are free to create any website you want, if you can find hosting to support your message. The internet still is mostly free and wide open.
An audience though is something you earn, these networks have EARNED their audience. What you're wanting is the equivalent of walking into the 7 o'clock news and demanding to be put on the air so you can tell everyone about your goat's birthday party on Saturday.
Seriously, nobody cares about your goat's birthday party. ABCD news has ZERO reason to put you on the air, you have zero rights to their audience, or to a platform at all.
Platforms like twitter/facebook/etc are NEW. It's an EARNED thing, as long as you're a good global citizen you can keep participating, when you go against social norms you get cast out, like pretty much every civic organization in the history of the world.
Town Drunk, sex offenders, felons, etc. all cast out for going against norms. Should they all get equal platform time to defend themselves 24/7 and everyone is required to let their content go across their feed on social media? How's that not also authoritarian, sounds a lot like communism to me...
The state seizing control of private business communication channels and forcing it open for everyone regardless of their message whether it's a birthday party, or terrorist organization recruiting message.
it's not just reddit, i'm talking about social media in general getting too involved in politics, but only when it suits them and only when it is trendy
It's another thing for social media to do it. although they are all private companies, they remain a very global big force, that do not have reach only in the US, but are global and can do the same and affect many countries and politics across the globe.
Soon, if not already happening, politics will be pushed to one side or the other.
And it won't be for stopping hate speech, it will and it is so that they can make even more money.
On the bright side, I am an optimistic person, and since they dared block the president of the USA, maybe be they might not flinch anymore at blocking pedophiles, hitmen, terrorists, and all sorts of vile users on their platforms.