[klabb3]

Yeah they do that too, but that's what I don't like, because I don't think opinions should be regulated by corporations. Also I can't tell if you're sarcastic. In case not, what is it effective at? Silencing people with bad opinions?

[ekidd]

I've moderated a number of internet forums. And at the end of the day, you have a choice:

1. You can keep the deliberate assholes, the abusers, the white supremacists, the people with actual swastikas in their profile photos, etc. (Some of these people are much worse than others, obviously.)

2. Or you can keep the nice, pleasant people you want to hang out with.

If you choose to keep (1), you'll eventually lose a significant fraction of (2).

I have zero desire to participate in unmoderated internet communities. Social spaces require some basic norms of behavior, and there has to be some mechanism for kicking people out.

If you want to encourage successful communities, people need to have the freedom of association.

[phailhaus]

Banning hate groups has been provably effective at reducing toxicity on the platform, [1] so the idea that bans will just cause the toxicity to spread to other subreddits turned out to be false. Analogously, there's no obligation for us to bend over backwards to avoid ostracizing hate groups and fringe conspiracy theorists. They are not interested in good-faith debate.

[1] https://www.engadget.com/2017-09-12-reddit-hate-subreddits-b...