Discussion for article #238607
The answer to a free speech problem is almost never to ban the speech, but rather more speech to counter it. So, simply provide more informationâinclude each commentorâs true name and address and phone number and photo.
Remove the protection of anonymity form the trolls and see how long they can stand the sunlight.
10 Likes
I agree with the criticism that markets do not magically fix things like this and libertarians are fooling themselves if they think so.
But itâs stuff like this that makes me wonder if Iâm the only liberal left who will defend speech I find appalling anymore? I donât want the internet to ban speech I donât like because someone else doesnât like my speech just as much and I donât have special rights that they donât. (and yes Iâm using ârightsâ in a non-govermental way).
6 Likes
Can I have your name, address, phone number and photo? I find your comment offensive. It isnât? Who decided that?
7 Likes
A lot wonât care. Plus, once you start doing that, thereâll be a call to unmask anyone that opposes them. Not a good idea to start playing games with anonymity.
Just ban the subreddits.
(I especially like the rollover text on this one.)
6 Likes
The Reddit owners can decide to publish the identities of commentors. And, what was your name again?
It is not merely a matter of defending speech one finds appalling. The article spoke of âuse harassment as a toolâ ⌠if people use Twitter, etc., to harass a person, it is not merely not âlikingâ speech but an abuse of a forum that requires some minimal rules.
To give an example. A person on Twitter made a stupid joke about a police officer & from her past comments, a reasonable person should have known she wasnât serious. Hundreds of people harassed her, threatening her etc. By merely responding to a post of her and having my Twitter handle attached, I got many of the messages. A few of my own followers were so turned off that they stopped following ME. Eventually the woman had to shut down her account even after making it clear she was not serious and was sorry for the comment.
To stop such harassing comments on Twitter, you are not simply âbanning speechâ as a mere act of censorship. It isnât a matter of only defending speech you like.
1 Like
No, you first. A big value of the Internet is able to discuss without exposing all your identifying information that if published will lead to some people harassing others or worse. John Oliver had a segment on that sort of thing. Itâs a really bad idea. Even for âtrollsâ and again not sure how to define that especially since sometimes the word is overused. And, some troll still shouldnât be open to getting phone calls etc. because their phone number was released after they were a tool. Such vigilante justice is a bad idea and will happen (at times by other types of trolls).
5 Likes
For any sport, there are a set of rules, and you need referees to enforce those rules, otherwise games would descend into chaos. For the rules of society and the economy, those referees are the government. Without the government refs, you get monopolies, predatory companies, Jim Crow, etc.
Do Libertarians think we donât need refs because people will always do the right thing? If so, that is hopelessly naive.
6 Likes
As usual, XKCD is thoughtful and funny. But it does not address the point of this column or my response; no one here is confusing first amendment rights. Instead, we are discussing how one commercial hosting site can deal with the problem of trolls. Banning individuals or portions of the site is one option, but the owners may think it makes them less attractive to users or advertisers, or risk other parts of the site being hijacked. My idea would simply expose the source of some comments, and who could argue with that?
Defending doesnât mean subsidizing speech you find appalling. Nor would Reddit shutting down this subreddits be any violation of the 1st Amendment rights. Reddit isnât the government.
If these trolls want to pool their own resources and set up a server and buy/develop the software to have their virtual hate-ons, they are perfectly free to do so.
To me, the issue is probably going to revolve back around toâŚReddit isnât the government. By acquiescing to the trolls, they will make themselves less and less relevant to rest of the community and eventually go insolvent.
8 Likes
For the most part they canât. Reddit allows users to create accounts without any associated name or email address. This is a deliberate decision in support of user anonymity.
1 Like
More âangry white dudâ opinion from Amanda. No surprise there.
5 Likes
So change the policy. Thatâs what ownership allows them to do.
The idea that a site like Reddit could easily ban all of these subreddits just shows that people donât understand what makes them work and what makes them thrive. The ability of people to freely create new forums on Reddit is a big part of what keeps it fresh, so you canât really put a damper on that, which means that you could ban a subreddit like r/coontown every day, and two more with slightly different names would pop up the next day to take its place. By saying they will let those subs exist but be hidden from anyone who doesnât go looking for them, Reddit is actually keeping their denizens quiet in the best way possible, rather than having to fight an ongoing war with them. Reddit has between 3 and 5 million users, which makes it impossible to police their speech until it crosses the line into direct harassment that gets reported.
6 Likes
See the problem is define âharassâ. Threats are illegal and should not be tolerated, thatâs a clear and easy one.
But really look at what you are describing here, and what is your solution? A person says something on Twitter, a public forum that anyone can read and post too. And then the rest of the public says something back to them. How is them using the same freedoms the original poster did âharassmentâ. As long as there are no threats, then whats the problem? What if the original joke was in fact some racist awful shit, should the poster then be insulated from others criticizing them for it, so as the original racist wonât feel âharassedâ? If not then who gets to decide? You seem to be asking that some people have a freedom that others shouldnât have. As a leftist in America and the subject of a lot of hate from those that donât think I should have the right to say certain things, âm very uncomfortable with that line of reasoning.
1 Like
If every forum required release of your âtrue name and address and phone number and photoâ, it would pretty much exclude women from the internet.
10 Likes
Yeah, but that kinda undermines the authorâs thesis that libertarianism doesnât work. If Reddit refuses to get rid of the bigots, then people will leave Reddit, Reddit will run out of money, and Reddit will go away.
Now libertarians have been living in lalaland since their inception, but this argument definitely doesnât do anything to show it.
And more people reductively categorizing what she said so they can categorically reject it. No surprise there, either.
7 Likes
Considering how many women I know have been leaving Facebook rather than be forced to put their real name on their account, this is almost certainly true. Anonymity may aid people in harassing, but for others, it is how they avoid harassment from stalkers and crazy exes.
5 Likes