Yes, but some of them aren't. There are instances of people being banned because they participated in another sub. Instances of people being banned for criticizing Israel. It wouldn't be so much of an issue if it was like back in the day where there were a thousand independent boards. But Reddit killed that.
I had an account banned simply for pointing out that there was a spare seat in that orbiting sports car, and implying that Musk would be a good choice of passenger.
It made me wonder how unlikely or impossible an event has to be before it would no longer be considered a real threat by whoever or whatever flags posts like that. Firing billionaires into the Sun? Hmm, probably too close to home. Sending them light years away to fire them into a black hole?
You get a flood of people praising Hitler in your subreddit. 1000 per day You have two buttons in front of you: ban individual user (ban form takes 30 seconds minimum to load and fill out), and ban all from /HitlerLovers. Which do you pick.
That's not what happened with r/conspiracy users getting banned in other forums. Yeah I guess it has its place but that feature has been mostly misused from what I've seen.
You're also a mod of six different forums. Do you wait until each one gets targeted by /HitlerLovers before configuring the bot to ban them or do you just leave off the filter from the bot and have it ban them everywhere it has power to?
Btw, seeing how far right people with a megaphone in the town square looked and acted (and hearing the AI music they blasted) made me more convinced they're degenerate trash than any censorship ever could.
If someone is doing that, it's classified as either a true threat or an incitement, both of which have been clearly established as not covered by the 1st amendment by SCOTUS and thus illegal - and can be stopped for no more reason than the fact that it's illegal.
On the other hand, online content moderation rules often get politically weaponized to silence dissent that is inconvenient but fully legal (and perfectly fine, for as much as you might disagree with it / hate that others get to hear ideas you don't like).
Going from "I voiced my opinion on the internet" to "people are inciting gassing the jews" is quite the stretch, crosses a well defined line, and is just nonsensical.
howunfortunate · · focus · HN ↗
I'd wager the vast majority of internet censorship is within platform, like that done by Reddit mods.
The most egregious example I've seen in my lifetime was when old Twitter decided to censor a NYPost article, down to blocking sharing in DMs.
It seems that type of example is entirely missed here. Is there any attempt to capture that signal?
eigenspace · · focus · HN ↗
Literally even 4chan has moderation.
Nobody, not even 4chan users, want an actually unmoderated space.
NDlurker · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
NDlurker · · focus · HN ↗
antonvs · · focus · HN ↗
It made me wonder how unlikely or impossible an event has to be before it would no longer be considered a real threat by whoever or whatever flags posts like that. Firing billionaires into the Sun? Hmm, probably too close to home. Sending them light years away to fire them into a black hole?
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
NDlurker · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
NDlurker · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
account42 · · focus · HN ↗
That alone shows that the hyothetical "you" is the last person who should be allowed to moderate anything.
lirolero · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
econ · · focus · HN ↗
That one can only do it within reddit is of course merely a technical limitation. The idea can be implemented much more broadly.
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
includenotfound · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
neuroticnews25 · · focus · HN ↗
neuroticnews25 · · focus · HN ↗
includenotfound · · focus · HN ↗
If someone is doing that, it's classified as either a true threat or an incitement, both of which have been clearly established as not covered by the 1st amendment by SCOTUS and thus illegal - and can be stopped for no more reason than the fact that it's illegal.
On the other hand, online content moderation rules often get politically weaponized to silence dissent that is inconvenient but fully legal (and perfectly fine, for as much as you might disagree with it / hate that others get to hear ideas you don't like).
Going from "I voiced my opinion on the internet" to "people are inciting gassing the jews" is quite the stretch, crosses a well defined line, and is just nonsensical.