Why do people still use Reddit?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by SilverGS

PsYcNeT

Can you supply links to this illegal content that Reddit is hosting? Or is it not illegal just material you find morally reprehensible on a personal level?

Reddit's rules state quite clearly that child pornography is not allowed. The rule was expanded about a year ago to also apply to sexually-suggestive images of minors even if they're not illegal. If you happen to accidentally stumble upon such content while browsing the site (I personally have never encountered it; I think it's the type of thing you have to purposely go looking for), you should report it so it will be removed.

Aside from that, though, Reddit has an "anything goes" policy and a very open interpretation of free speech. They're so anti-censorship that they choose to allow all kinds of incredibly distasteful (but not illegal) content. I'll leave deciding whether that's an acceptable way to run a hugely popular website or not as an exercise to the reader.

http://www.reddit.com/rules

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by valo403

That, and he's decided that things that are legal but against his particular moral code should also be taken down. Basically he's decided what's okay and anyone who crosses his imaginary line is morally bankrupt.

Yes how morally uptight I am to oppose beating women, advocating rape, misogynists and pictures of tweens in bikinis.

[BigNumbers]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Yes how morally uptight I am to oppose beating women, advocating rape, misogynists and pictures of tweens in bikinis.

You're moving the goal posts. Logical Fallacy.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

You're moving the goal posts. Logical Fallacy.

Yep didn't mention any of those things in my OP. Nope, not at all.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Yep didn't mention any of those things in my OP. Nope, not at all.

There's a big difference between supporting misogyny and being against censorship of misogynistic content.

You ignored my question the last time, but do you think Starbucks should station an employee at each table to listen to people's conversations and kick out anyone who is being distasteful? If not, why should an online meeting place be any different?

[zukes]

The first and only time I have ever been on Reddit was just last week when Jose Bautista did an "ask me anything" session with them. I honestly did not even know what Reddit was for until I skimmed the first post in this thread. I still don't think that I have a full grasp on it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by zukes

The first and only time I have ever been on Reddit was just last week when Jose Bautista did an "ask me anything" session with them. I honestly did not even know what Reddit was for until I skimmed the first post in this thread. I still don't think that I have a full grasp on it.

I always thought it was just some type of comedy site like Ebaulmsworld or something (I haven't been there in years though either).

I'm the worst as finding out about these things though. I just went on Twitter for the 1st time last week.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by gargamel

There's a big difference between supporting misogyny and being against censorship of misogynistic content.

You ignored my question the last time, but do you think Starbucks should station an employee at each table to listen to people's conversations and kick out anyone who is being distasteful? If not, why should an online meeting place be any different?

What a bizarre comparison, but sure I'll bite.

Starbucks doesn't have the capacity for this, as their logical staff levels and ability to police conversation is unrealistic.

A website however, can at minimum install filtration programs (much like CalPuck's swear filter) and not allow awful content to be posted, or improper subreddits to be created.

On top of that, there is a "report" button beside every comment and submission, and SRS and like-minded crews have been reporting content to the admins for years. Unfortunately, Reddit is set up in such a way that whomevers start a sub is in full control of it (so, it would be the same as if I had full control over this threads content, including deleting criticizing posts), thus causing many insular micro-communities where reported content goes to no one but the person who was likely posting it in the first place. Inmates running the asylum and all that.

On top of that, there is no flag system for improper subreddits, and reported subs are notified to high-level admins (like violentacrez), who summarily ignore them based on personal ideology.

It's a systemic issue that goes far beyond the userbase, and well into it's power structure.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

What a bizarre comparison, but sure I'll bite.

Starbucks doesn't have the capacity for this, as their logical staff levels and ability to police conversation is unrealistic.

A website however, can at minimum install filtration programs (much like CalPuck's swear filter) and not allow awful content to be posted, or improper subreddits to be created.

On top of that, there is a "report" button beside every comment and submission, and SRS and like-minded crews have been reporting content to the admins for years. Unfortunately, Reddit is set up in such a way that whomevers start a sub is in full control of it (so, it would be the same as if I had full control over this threads content, including deleting criticizing posts), thus causing many insular micro-communities where reported content goes to no one but the person who was likely posting it in the first place. Inmates running the asylum and all that.

On top of that, there is no flag system for improper subreddits, and reported subs are notified to high-level admins (like violentacrez), who summarily ignore them based on personal ideology.

It's a systemic issue that goes far beyond the userbase, and well into it's power structure.

Just to be clear, are you talking about illegal content or immoral content. I feel like you are blending them together.
The material that is illegal is being removed as is the jail bait material. The rest of it is allowed under the terms of the site. People ignore the reported posts that fit within the site rules.

Not liking something and banning others from saying it are two different things entirely. And the Starbucks argument that you dismissed is quite apt I think. The technology exists to have voice monitoring installed in every Starbucks to pick up key words and allow staff to kick out anyone who says something that you don't agree with. They don't do it, because society doesn't work that way.

I have spent a fair amount of time on Reddit and never come across anything illegal. That makes me think their system works pretty well.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Just to be clear, are you talking about illegal content or immoral content. I feel like you are blending them together.
The material that is illegal is being removed as is the jail bait material. The rest of it is allowed under the terms of the site. People ignore the reported posts that fit within the site rules.

Not liking something and banning others from saying it are two different things entirely. And the Starbucks argument that you dismissed is quite apt I think. The technology exists to have voice monitoring installed in every Starbucks to pick up key words and allow staff to kick out anyone who says something that you don't agree with. They don't do it, because society doesn't work that way.

I have spent a fair amount of time on Reddit and never come across anything illegal. That makes me think their system works pretty well.

Aside from the whole "enabling child exploitation communities" and all that, yes, I am opposed to them on moral grounds aside from the illegal things that have been relegated to more obscure subs and PMs.

Though by this point in the thread I would assume that much is obvious.

Also, before another "they practice free speech" defence comes up, Reddit is a global site, and not every country allows people to talk about (for example) raping and beating women openly.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Also, before another "they practice free speech" defence comes up, Reddit is a global site, and not every country allows people to talk about (for example) raping and beating women openly.

Actually that is wrong. Reddit is based in San Francisco and thus only has to abide by American laws, which include freedom of speech.

And again, if you're going with enabling child exploitation, I assume you are for shutting down Yahoo!, Google and all other search engines, since they too enable you to access illicit material.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Aside from the whole "enabling child exploitation communities" and all that, yes, I am opposed to them on moral grounds aside from the illegal things that have been relegated to more obscure subs and PMs.

Though by this point in the thread I would assume that much is obvious.

Also, before another "they practice free speech" defence comes up, Reddit is a global site, and not every country allows people to talk about (for example) raping and beating women openly.

And some of those countries probably block Reddit. Fortunately, we live in a Country that allows people to say things that others may consider immoral.

And you have continually avoided any questions about the drug trade that you endorse which is responsible for the same crimes and more. Why is one okay and the other not?

[johnnyrocket03]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

And some of those countries probably block Reddit. Fortunately, we live in a Country that allows people to say things that others may consider immoral.

And you have continually avoided any questions about the drug trade that you endorse which is responsible for the same crimes and more. Why is one okay and the other not?

Because you are moving the goal posts and anytime goal posts are moved, your question becomes invalid and he slithers his way out of it.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Actually that is wrong. Reddit is based in San Francisco and thus only has to abide by American laws, which include freedom of speech.

Correct, they only have to abide American laws, however that may not be the most morally concious choice.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

And again, if you're going with enabling child exploitation, I assume you are for shutting down Yahoo!, Google and all other search engines, since they too enable you to access illicit material.

I have yet to see a report or article stating that either Yahoo or Google do not remove access to illicit material involving children once it has been flagged or reported.

If such a report exists, I would be very interested to read it.

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

And you have continually avoided any questions about the drug trade that you endorse which is responsible for the same crimes and more. Why is one okay and the other not?

Because I'm at work.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Yes how morally uptight I am to oppose beating women, advocating rape, misogynists and pictures of tweens in bikinis.

Can you provide better detail or a link to where I can find this on Reddit, please.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I have yet to see a report or article stating that either Yahoo or Google do not remove access to illicit material involving children once it has been flagged or reported.

If such a report exists, I would be very interested to read it.

What report do you need? Go ahead and search for any kind of ####ed up twisted #### you'd like to see and they'll direct you to the appropriate websites.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Can you provide better detail or a link to where I can find this on Reddit, please.

I listed 7 or 8 subs in my OP.

Please read the OP before responding to a thread kthx.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Correct, they only have to abide American laws, however that may not be the most morally concious choice.



I have yet to see a report or article stating that either Yahoo or Google do not remove access to illicit material involving children once it has been flagged or reported.

These answers are interesting. You condemn Reddit on moral grounds then willfully ignore morality when defending Yahoo and Google.

I've got news for you. A Google or Yahoo search on incest, rape or "tweens in bikinis" is going to yield hits. And a great many of them at that. It is, in fact, far easier to find such material via a Google search than on Reddit. So please, explain to me why you are so morally outraged at the one, but not the other.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

These answers are interesting. You condemn Reddit on moral grounds then willfully ignore morality when defending Yahoo and Google.

I've got news for you. A Google or Yahoo search on incest, rape or "tweens in bikinis" is going to yield hits. And a great many of them at that. It is, in fact, far easier to find such material via a Google search than on Reddit. So please, explain to me why you are so morally outraged at the one, but not the other.

So you're saying that Google won't remove those links from their SE once reported?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Yes how morally uptight I am to oppose beating women, advocating rape, misogynists and pictures of tweens in bikinis.

If all of the things you oppose on Reddit are so clearly morally repugnant then why are they still legal? Reddit has established it's line in the sand, if it's legal it's okay. Perhaps your issue should be addressed to the legislatures that determine what is legal.