[slivym]

I disagree with this, I think it's fine for large web companies to apply their own morals. The problem I have is that they're having their cake and eating it.

To me there are two models:

- You are a platform, you don't moderate content (although you do respond to law enforcement), you are not responsible for the content on your site.

- You are a media company, you do moderate content, you are responsible for the content on your site.

Reddit & Youtube want a little from (A) a little from (B). They want the revenue from being a neutral platform, and the control of being a media company to moderate content for PR purposes.

The problem they're facing is that by banning stuff they don't like, they are endorsing everything they don't ban. So for example, at Reddit, Pizzagate is now officially endorsed as a reasonable point of view that Reddit believes is a valid opinion and is worthy of investigation. We know that reddit endorses pizzagate, because reddit moderates their content and decided to allow pizzagate conspiracies.

[prepend]

What are their morals? If corporations even have morals, the morality based decisions seem purely based on some unknown to me outrage/butthurt quantum. So this fluctuates quite a bit depending on many factors. Interestingly, since social media can be used to manipulate opinion pretty easily (eg, CA) large companies can bootstrap outrage according to their true values.

This could end up being a maximizing rule for revenue. So a pseudo morality may be as simple as “legal, pr coverage, max revenue).

[otakucode]

Uncertain about Reddit, but Google/Alphabet morals were pretty well laid out in Eric Schmidt's book "A New Digital Age" where he details how because he is rich, it is his duty to determine the morality of society. It's a very old-school viewpoint that's common amongst 'old money' types that see the general public as rabble to be yolked and who must be protected from their own self-destructive natures. It's the mindset that backed kings and queens for thousands of years and got a swift kicking in the late 1700s on the global stage. But it seems to be making a comeback, albeit a pretty small one so far. This is actual Conservative mindset, where the rights of the individual are a distant second to the rights of the 'greater' structure being served, whether that be a nation, religion, or whatever. Liberalism was the view that people are equals, that there are no 'special' people imbued with an inherent superiority that entitles them to ruling over and guiding others against their will, and any 'greater' organization should fall if it requires grinding individuals rights to stand.

[rphlx]

> Liberalism was the view that people are equals, that there are no 'special' people imbued with an inherent superiority that entitles them to ruling over and guiding others against their will, and any 'greater' organization should fall if it requires grinding individuals rights to stand.

That was the definition in the 18th century but modern liberalism (neoliberalism, corporate neoliberalism, or whatever you want to call it) - as personified by Blair and Clinton in the mid-90s and then continued more or less in-tact ever since - has diverged very, very far from that philosophy. That's neither an endorsement nor a complaint, but a simple historical fact.

[slivym]

Well for a start, Reddit is a privately owned company run by Steve Huffman and he's been very open that he will use his own moral judgement. Companies are capable of making moral decisions - I agree that most companies morals boil down to "Make the most money and do whatever we can for that purpose" but that's fine, we can judge them on that basis.

[Rebelgecko]

I still see ads on reddit for alcohol and tobacco products (well, I did until yesterday when I turned uBlock back on for reddit). A subreddit that links to wine for sale is bad, but if those same links are purchased as ads it's allowed. I think that says a lot about the morals behind this change.

[this_user]

The real reason for these new rules are the advertisers. The more objectionable content you have on your platform, the more difficult it becomes to attract them. Take 4chan as an example: For years they were struggling to find anyone who would want to advertise there, and that is not entirely surprising.

Reddit is apparently also preparing an IPO in the foreseeable future. It would appear they are attempting to make the site more palatable for institutional investors by cleaning up.

[otakucode]

That was the excuse YouTube used. It was a lie. A plain fabrication. We know this because Alphabet released their earnings and made crystal clear that no 'adpocalypse' ever occurred at all. There was no dip in advertising revenue. In fact, it has only increased. Their motive is not driven by skittish advertisers.

[jacksmith21006]

What? When no advertisers Google is footing the bill. So Google having Alex Jones on YT means Google is paying the bills.

On guns tons and tons and tons of companies have cut ties with the NRA. Yet Google still has the NRA channel.

Data does not support your post.

Personal!y I wish Google would remove content with no advertisers and we can get rid of the alt right crap.

[Scoundreller]

Or just offer 2 tranches of advertising. A higher rate for those that only want to be next to “vetted” content.

Another cheaper rate for those that don’t care.

[gnu8]

I wonder how we can effectively punish Reddit for this. If we can cut into their advertising revenue and derail their IPO, that might force them to reverse their position.

[malnourish]

Or the company might just die. If you want to "punish" them, use or create a different site.

[pkaye]

You can stop using Reddit. That will drive down their advertising revenue.

[Scoundreller]

If they can have the best of both worlds, then so can I.

I’ve enabled my ad blocker on Reddit.

Maybe I’ll suggest having it added to our corporate web filters.

[slivym]

It's much more than that. What if the next time someone posted a conspiracy theory on Reddit about Hilary Clinton she filed a libel claim against Reddit in the UK.

The UK court will consider that under it's jurisdiction because the publication was available in the UK. The UK libel law essentially puts the burden of proof on the defendant.

So now an American citizen can force an American company to prove that the claims of an anonymous user were true, or pay damages.

You can't IPO if everything on your platform is a potentially bankrupting libel lawsuit waiting to happen.

[nezzle]

> I think it's fine for large web companies to apply their own morals.

This is rather like saying you think it's fine for libraries to only carry books in line with their morals. Or perhaps that your phone only works for approved topics.

At a certain size these sites become primary platforms for communication. I would argue that at that point they should be considered a governmental entity for laws around freedom of speech applied to historical means of communication. Or made into one.

[lern_too_spel]

You have a right to publish your own materials. You do not have a right to make a newspaper publish a classified that is against its policies. Similarly, you can put whatever you want on your website. You cannot force another website carry your content simply because that website has achieved some level of distribution.

[tobylane]

>I would argue that at that point they should be considered a governmental entity for laws around freedom of speech.

That's then infringing on their freedom of speech (or lack of). It's an interesting opinion but as it's so far away from any other I've read can you explain it more?

[nezzle]

I'm thinking 'telephone network' rather than 'newspaper'. Phone companies were built as monopolies and faced strict regulation. Imagine your phone only working for company approved topics :)

Speech was worthy of protection under the universal declaration of human rights, and these platforms are becoming so fundamental to communication that they should be given the same consideration.

These platforms have become so centralized, powerful, and ubiquitous that censorship on a platform has a greater impact than preventing a person from speaking. That kind of power should never be wielded unchecked by a private entity.

[dfxm12]

The problem they're facing is that by banning stuff they don't like, they are endorsing everything they don't ban.

This doesn't follow. Not at all. This new rule is pretty clear that users may not use Reddit to solicit or facilitate any transaction or gift involving certain goods and services. Pizzagate has nothing to do with soliciting or facilitating transactions or gifts.

Even if I take your reading of this at face value, it doesn't follow. Having rules against one thing doesn't prove Reddit endorses everything else. That's quite a leap to make, and doesn't follow any sort of logic or precedent.

[xster]

My internet history may be a bit hazy but isn't Reddit banning r/pizzagate or whatever it was and u/spez shadow editing people's comments the 2 biggest events of Reddit last year and likely why voat has users?

[nezzle]

voat has users?

[xster]

Apparently #1589 in the US https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/voat.co

[xster]

Apparently 1589 in the US https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/voat.co