- By and large, these were business decisions. They were never based on ideology. But as multiple networks ramped up their anti-abuse measures in tandem, a fluid contingent of users began interpreting them that way.
I've never been so glad for Hubski to not be mentioned in a news article.
When you have alternative websites to use, like Hubski, like 4chan, 8chan, voat.co, youtube, facebook, the ability to create your own website, any complaints about "censorship" just come off as silly and melodramatic. Reddit doesn't have a monopoly on discussion on the internet. Us being here is proof of that.
That depends on whether you have a functional understanding of the difference between using someone else's platform to say whatever you want and eating food. In this case, no, what you said has no correlation to what I said about free speech in America, so no. The answer is no by virtue of irrelevance. I may be entitled to food but I'm not entitled to go to any restaurant , eat for free, then kick the server in the dick.
Wow. I meant it as an analogy. Simply because one has never experienced the full horrors of a problem doesn't mean one is entirely ignorant of the issue overall. In the same way that people who have never been in a famine can say they're hungry, Americans can be aware of, and complain about, censorship. The issue to me isn't legal. Of course they were well within their legal rights. It's a moral issue that has a tendacy over the past couple of days to be overly simplfied. The number of players ibvovled stretches well beyond just /r/fatpeoplehate and Pao, the issues go beyond just fat shaming and political correctness, and the history of the company and the users. For me, the main issues were that (1) the company had previously expressed that it wouldn't do exactly this i.e. outright banning entire subreddits that appeared to be following the site wide rules and (2) that subreddits that even sounded like they had a similar goal were also banned, while subreddits advocating far worse ideologies and illegal activities. Besides, censorship is not something that can only be implemented under strong-arm regimes. Any community or organization anc partake in censorship, including the state (of course), academia, and, as in this instance, a company.
But it was still harassing people. Just because other people do it doesn't mean that it's okay.
They own and control the site. They're allowed to dictate the terms of use. If I ever had my own site, I'd have a long list of rules. No harassing, no spamming, no hate speech, no obscene images, on and on and on. I'm all for free speech, but I'd not allow a single bit of that on my site. Know why? Cause I don't want to have to hassle with the eventual consequences. I don't have a problem in the slightest with Reddit banning those subreddits. If it was my company, I'd ban more subreddits than that. That's not what I'm upset with them about though. The whole place seems to have become one giant corporate shill. That's something I can't support.
I think they partly made the decision about those five subs because of the volume of reports, how egregious the transgressions were, and the fact that the mods of those subs were not doing anything to stop or slow it- in some instances even encouraging it.
I have a hard time believing the narrative here: fat-shamers being upset they cannot fat-shame their heart out on a corporate website. It's seems to be more about users (producing all the content of a commercial website) being upset to be treated like tools.
But that must be too much of a Marxist interpretation. Fat-shamers wanting too fat-shame so bad they call "censorship" make more sense, right?
Can we just quit bitching about Reddit nonsense here already?
Quit calling harassers "trolls", media. That's not what a "troll" is.
Can we please not bring Reddit drama to Hubski? I already get too much of that at Voat.
Dude. The post is tagged "Reddit." That is the only tag. It is not tagged Internet, Math, Science, Technology nor Punk. Further, you are not following me. Therefore the only way you could possibly have found this is by cruising global. You don't get to dictate global. Neither do I, neither does anybody else. Don't want to hear about stuff on Reddit? IGNORE THINGS TAGGED "REDDIT." You have absolute granular control over what you see and what you don't yet you resort to telling me what to post?
Yes. it's so much easier than having to think for myself, or discover and explore this fun new Hubski website. Also, why is hubski so ugly looking? I have a great idea that I think we can use.. I was playing around in wordpress the other day - just credit me if you use it. ... Sorry, my lesser nature got the best of me.You have absolute granular control over what you see and what you don't yet you resort to telling me what to post?
I am trying and utterly failing to understand what value is added by cryptographically signing this comment...
I understand all that, but I wouldn't call them "good reasons". It's a throwaway comment that has absolutely no extra weight no matter who says it. Unless you have reason to believe that Hubski's security has been breached and someone is impersonating you it's needless and distracting. And even if he did believe that, this seems to be the only comment that DarkLinkXXXX has ever signed, so we still wouldn't know that it's the original DarkLinkXXXX based on this one signature.
I do agree it's distracting. That's why I relegated the signature into a paste in a pastebin, linked to at the bottom of my comment as I usually do. See: All my comments since a couple days ago.. Do I need a reason? I used to have some fun being a script-kiddie by dumping SQL tables, and there's a lot of vulnerable sites out there. Not to say that this site might be vulnerable, but the nice thing here is that I don't have to trust the admins of any website to keep your online identity secure.it's needless and distracting.
this seems to be the only comment that DarkLinkXXXX has ever signed
Unless you have reason to believe that Hubski's security has been breached and someone is impersonating you
I do agree very much agree, but there's only one problem with this: it's too many steps! First, I have to copy-paste my comment and sign it. Then I have to put it in a pastebin, copy the url, and then link it in the comment below. That's simply too many steps for most people. Though, I am optimistic about keybase maybe making a secure API to make the process easier.
Since (AFAICS) he hasn't provided his public key anywhere, with which we could verify this message, then it's meaningless (as I understand PGP/GPG).
If he did so, then we could tell if any leet haxors had twisted his words behind his back - if we bothered to check, which we of course would not.
The comment links to keybase, and his public key is there. Not that that makes it any less pointless, but for what it's worth if you want to copy and paste his comment, remove the leading whitespace, and fix where the markup has mangled the signature, you can satisfy yourself that this comment was written by DarkLinkXXXX and no other.
Aha. I visited the site, but didn't see any user-info links; but when I put his hubski-username into the search-box, his profile and key did pop up.
I agree. That's why I moved my signature to an unmangled pastebin link. ;)