#RedditRevolt

[Fighter]

It would also be silly to suggest that there are no people who believe in Bigfoot. There are. But so what?

 

The insinuation that video is making is that those people are numerous enough to matter. They are not. Only in the demented minds of SJW media who keep talking about them.

 

Victoria Taylor is a woman too. Why wasn't there a massive movement against her?

[HoonDing]

Wambulance:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca1_o7b7qcY

*updated my LinkedIn*

[Keyrock]

Wait, Ms. Lacy claims when talking about the negative side of the internet (right before the cesspool comment) that Gawker media attacks women, but isn't Gawker media behind Kotaku who are one of the "Social Justice" websites that think the presentation of women in games is bad?

 

Is this weird to anyone else, or am I misunderstanding?

Gawker is grotesque chimera of lies and contradictions, trying to understand its "message" is sheer folly.

 

/gives self a pat on the back for using "chimera" in a sentence

Edited July 13, 2015 by Keyrock

[HoonDing]

Truth and lies could form a chimera, lies and contradictions not so much.

Edited July 13, 2015 by HoonDing

[BruceVC]

It would also be silly to suggest that there are no people who believe in Bigfoot. There are. But so what?

 

The insinuation that video is making is that those people are numerous enough to matter. They are not. Only in the demented minds of SJW media who keep talking about them.

 

Victoria Taylor is a woman too. Why wasn't there a massive movement against her?

 

You see the  problem is there is  a sense of impunity on Reddit where people can say what they want and insult  who they want without moderation...so it reminds me of the whole GG saga. A few people were able to give the entire GG movement a bad name as far as the media and many others were concerned ( you notice GG got mentioned in the video...your infamy outlives you   ) So even though you say that sexist element shouldn't matter unfortunately they do matter because of the bad perception it creates for Reddit 

 

And that's fine....I'm done fighting battles over places like Reddit. I have no issue if  millions of people love Reddit and enjoy its moderation policy, they are entitled to post on any website they want and I know there are many interesting debates on Reddit . I wont support it and as Ms Lacy said people need to realize it will be difficult for it to become this huge financial success through the various ways websites generate revenue on the Internet 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Wait, Ms. Lacy claims when talking about the negative side of the internet (right before the cesspool comment) that Gawker media attacks women, but isn't Gawker media behind Kotaku who are one of the "Social Justice" websites that think the presentation of women in games is bad?

Is this weird to anyone else, or am I misunderstanding?

You aren't misunderstanding. Gawker attacks women, such as posting Olivia Munn's texts and pictures, while related blogs in the Gawker family complain about various things. Won't even get into stuff like the Hogan sex tape, but it seems Gawker is fine with attacking people if they're the right target.

[Amentep]

You see the  problem is there is  a sense of impunity on Reddit where people can say what they want and insult  who they want without moderation...so it reminds me of the whole GG saga. A few people were able to give the entire GG movement a bad name as far as the media and many others were concerned ( you notice GG got mentioned in the video...your infamy outlives you   ) So even though you say that sexist element shouldn't matter unfortunately they do matter because of the bad perception it creates for Reddit

Reminds me a lot of USENET. Which was one of the problems (and features) of USENET¹ and why many people went to message boards.

 

¹I'm aware that USENET had moderated groups; they were not the norm though in my experience.

 

 

 

 

Wait, Ms. Lacy claims when talking about the negative side of the internet (right before the cesspool comment) that Gawker media attacks women, but isn't Gawker media behind Kotaku who are one of the "Social Justice" websites that think the presentation of women in games is bad?

Is this weird to anyone else, or am I misunderstanding?

You aren't misunderstanding. Gawker attacks women, such as posting Olivia Munn's texts and pictures, while related blogs in the Gawker family complain about various things. Won't even get into stuff like the Hogan sex tape, but it seems Gawker is fine with attacking people if they're the right target.

 

 

Seems weird; so why are so many people who are pro-SJ's siding with Kotaku if Gawker is problematic on a whole?

Edited July 13, 2015 by Amentep

[BruceVC]

 

You see the  problem is there is  a sense of impunity on Reddit where people can say what they want and insult  who they want without moderation...so it reminds me of the whole GG saga. A few people were able to give the entire GG movement a bad name as far as the media and many others were concerned ( you notice GG got mentioned in the video...your infamy outlives you   ) So even though you say that sexist element shouldn't matter unfortunately they do matter because of the bad perception it creates for Reddit

Reminds me a lot of USENET. Which was one of the problems (and features) of USENET¹ and why many people went to message boards.

 

¹I'm aware that USENET had moderated groups; they were not the norm though in my experience.

 

What was USENET like?  I always considered it the vanguard of Internet forums but it was more about intellectual debates and there was less general bad posting behavior like trolling and bigotry? Or do I have the wrong idea?

[Amentep]

What was USENET like?  I always considered it the vanguard of Internet forums but it was more about intellectual debates and there was less general bad posting behavior like trolling and bigotry? Or do I have the wrong idea?

Depends on where you were at, of course. There were a lot of civil discussion, but it had its dark side too. One of the News Groups I followed, for example, had a guy who if you disagreed with his position in an argument would start a thread with the title being something like "is a child molester". And most people had their real names on their IDs (weirdly, this was one of the reasons that message boards were seen as great - the ease of being anonymous).  A female writer had a falling out with a female fan who became an eStalker.  There was an upper-line of admins for USENET (the USENET "gods") but for the most part they didn't intervene in the affairs of the board from a content perspective, but mostly was involved in propagating news groups, making sure votes for new groups was legit and the like.

 

But it had its positive side as well, I interacted with writers, artists and game makers. And there were the great eccentric posters to read and good friends to talk with.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Amentep

[BruceVC]

 

What was USENET like?  I always considered it the vanguard of Internet forums but it was more about intellectual debates and there was less general bad posting behavior like trolling and bigotry? Or do I have the wrong idea?

Depends on where you were at, of course. There were a lot of civil discussion, but it had its dark side too. One of the News Groups I followed, for example, had a guy who if you disagreed with his position in an argument would start a thread with the title being something like "<person-he-disagreed-with's name>is a child molester". And most people had their real names on their IDs (weirdly, this was one of the reasons that message boards were seen as great - the ease of being anonymous).  A female writer had a falling out with a female fan who became an eStalker.  There was an upper-line of admins for USENET (the USENET "gods") but for the most part they didn't intervene in the affairs of the board from a content perspective, but mostly was involved in propagating news groups, making sure votes for new groups was legit and the like.

 

But it had its positive side as well, I interacted with writers, artists and game makers. And there were the great eccentric posters to read and good friends to talk with.

 

 

That makes sense, there will always be a certain level of questionable behavior amongst any group of people. That is basic human nature

 

But at the moment you get people who are truly professional Internet  trolls, cyberbullies and enjoy antagonizing people and basically live to create Internet strife. Thankfully they get banned from most websites so we don't get exposed to there toxicity. It doesn't seem like that specific group really existed on USENET or if they  it did it was very rare?

[Fighter]

 

It would also be silly to suggest that there are no people who believe in Bigfoot. There are. But so what?

 

The insinuation that video is making is that those people are numerous enough to matter. They are not. Only in the demented minds of SJW media who keep talking about them.

 

Victoria Taylor is a woman too. Why wasn't there a massive movement against her?

 

You see the  problem is there is  a sense of impunity on Reddit where people can say what they want and insult  who they want without moderation...so it reminds me of the whole GG saga. A few people were able to give the entire GG movement a bad name as far as the media and many others were concerned ( you notice GG got mentioned in the video...your infamy outlives you   ) So even though you say that sexist element shouldn't matter unfortunately they do matter because of the bad perception it creates for Reddit 

 

And that's fine....I'm done fighting battles over places like Reddit. I have no issue if  millions of people love Reddit and enjoy its moderation policy, they are entitled to post on any website they want and I know there are many interesting debates on Reddit . I wont support it and as Ms Lacy said people need to realize it will be difficult for it to become this huge financial success through the various ways websites generate revenue on the Internet 

 

 

See I absolutely and vehemently disagree with that.

 

Those people did not give GG a bad name. People of your persuasion did by disproportionately amplifying what a minority of people have said so you can use it as a crutch to ignore and shut out opinions you don't like. It is a perception that exists not because it is objectively true but because it is what you choose to see.

 

As far as Reddit and moderation in general. It is pretty simple really.

 

1) Freedom of speech (like any other freedom) comes at a price. You can say whatever you like. The price you pay is that people will say what you do not like.

 

2) Any law or rule or moderation policy is an extremely tricky thing. It can be too blanket or too vague and open to interpretation or abuse. And arguably in one way or the other always will be. The risk of that will always be present.

 

Many people believe that in a place like Reddit the responsibility to seethe through the content, to deal with the possibility of seeing what you don't like, to guard your own feelings, is your own. If you can't, if you need someone else to protect your emotions, then it's not for you and that's ok. That is the price paid for complete freedom, for seeing humanity as is and not just a fake avatar, for never dealing with the possibility of chilling effects increasing moderation may have on free speech.

 

The truth is nobody trusts social justice types to moderate fairly. Gamer Gate was the perfect example when thousands of posts were deleted completely regardless of their individual content. There is a fear that people who see racism in barbecue (yes this is for real) and sexism in any display male sexuality will get to be in charge of places like Reddit.

[Amentep]

That makes sense, there will always be a certain level of questionable behavior amongst any group of people. That is basic human nature

 

But at the moment you get people who are truly professional Internet  trolls, cyberbullies and enjoy antagonizing people and basically live to create Internet strife. Thankfully they get banned from most websites so we don't get exposed to there toxicity. It doesn't seem like that specific group really existed on USENET or if they  it did it was very rare?

 

They did to some degree.  There were less people with anonymous nicknames (but they did exist, like the guy I mentioned up-thread).  I think that people were less inclined to be asshats in public with a real name associated with it but even that wasn't a guarantee.  But as time went on more people created anonymous IDs or alt IDs and some of the alt. newsgroups (alt. hierarchies had a lower threshold to create and would often be abandoned and then repopulated by squatters) became the home of people who'd assail those who stumbled across their private clubhouse.  And towards the end of the time I was there, the Discordians loved trying to wreck the hierarchy in general by randomly cross-posting across hierarchies and staging "invasions" and such.

 

And there were console wars in the games newsgroup like clockwork every couple of months.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Amentep

[Malcador]

"weren't going to like her anyway because she's an Asian woman" -- does anyone really sincerely believes this childish bs?

Lots do. People always look to be a victim rather than consider they just suck, after all.

[BruceVC]

 

 

It would also be silly to suggest that there are no people who believe in Bigfoot. There are. But so what?

 

The insinuation that video is making is that those people are numerous enough to matter. They are not. Only in the demented minds of SJW media who keep talking about them.

 

Victoria Taylor is a woman too. Why wasn't there a massive movement against her?

 

You see the  problem is there is  a sense of impunity on Reddit where people can say what they want and insult  who they want without moderation...so it reminds me of the whole GG saga. A few people were able to give the entire GG movement a bad name as far as the media and many others were concerned ( you notice GG got mentioned in the video...your infamy outlives you   ) So even though you say that sexist element shouldn't matter unfortunately they do matter because of the bad perception it creates for Reddit 

 

And that's fine....I'm done fighting battles over places like Reddit. I have no issue if  millions of people love Reddit and enjoy its moderation policy, they are entitled to post on any website they want and I know there are many interesting debates on Reddit . I wont support it and as Ms Lacy said people need to realize it will be difficult for it to become this huge financial success through the various ways websites generate revenue on the Internet 

 

 

See I absolutely and vehemently disagree with that.

 

Those people did not give GG a bad name. People of your persuasion did by disproportionately amplifying what a minority of people have said so you can use it as a crutch to ignore and shut out opinions you don't like. It is a perception that exists not because it is objectively true but because it is what you choose to see.

 

As far as Reddit and moderation in general. It is pretty simple really.

 

1) Freedom of speech (like any other freedom) comes at a price. You can say whatever you like. The price you pay is that people will say what you do not like.

 

2) Any law or rule or moderation policy is an extremely tricky thing. It can be too blanket or too vague and open to interpretation or abuse. And arguably in one way or the other always will be. The risk of that will always be present.

 

Many people believe that in a place like Reddit the responsibility to seethe through the content, to deal with the possibility of seeing what you don't like, to guard your own feelings, is your own. If you can't, if you need someone else to protect your emotions, then it's not for you and that's ok. That is the price paid for complete freedom, for seeing humanity as is and not just a fake avatar, for never dealing with the possibility of chilling effects increasing moderation may have on free speech.

 

The truth is nobody trusts social justice types to moderate fairly. Gamer Gate was the perfect example when thousands of posts were deleted completely regardless of their individual content. There is a fear that people who see racism in barbecue (yes this is for real) and sexism in any display male sexuality will get to be in charge of places like Reddit.

 

 

Sure, I don't disagree with everything you are saying. You make some valid points but the reality of the reasons for the perception of GG is much more complex and nuanced than just people like me somehow amplifying the GG vitriol and misogyny that was real from some GG sectors. The mainstream media has also been critical about GG and you know the media loves to jump on a good SJ story...especially when there is some truth to it. So surly this should add some credibility to the overall validity ?

 

But the issue about Reddit is not so much about free speech for me but rather how people use that free speech...so if you think free speech in respects to Reddit means you can insult people in anyway without consequence that's fine we can agree to disagree. Also another issue about Reddit was she attacked not just because she was a bad CEO, and all evidence points at the fact  she wasn't that great, but she was  attacked because she was a women and Asian. That's the issue I have 

[BruceVC]

 

That makes sense, there will always be a certain level of questionable behavior amongst any group of people. That is basic human nature

 

But at the moment you get people who are truly professional Internet  trolls, cyberbullies and enjoy antagonizing people and basically live to create Internet strife. Thankfully they get banned from most websites so we don't get exposed to there toxicity. It doesn't seem like that specific group really existed on USENET or if they  it did it was very rare?

 

They did to some degree.  There were less people with anonymous nicknames (but they did exist, like the guy I mentioned up-thread).  I think that people were less inclined to be asshats in public with a real name associated with it but even that wasn't a guarantee.  But as time went on more people created anonymous IDs or alt IDs and some of the alt. newsgroups (alt. hierarchies had a lower threshold to create and would often be abandoned and then repopulated by squatters) became the home of people who'd assail those who stumbled across their private clubhouse.  And towards the end of the time I was there, the Discordians loved trying to wreck the hierarchy in general by randomly cross-posting across hierarchies and staging "invasions" and such.

 

And there were console wars in the games newsgroup like clockwork every couple of months.

 

 

When you say ID do you mean people had there first names or there surnames included ?

[Amentep]

 

 

Depends on how you were setup, but yes many people on USENET displayed First & Last name.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Amentep

[Zoraptor]

Real names were largely a holdover from the academic roots that it had, and having an anonymised name being seen as a bit dodgy in that context. It certainly did change towards more anonymity as time went on and more people joined the internet.
 

Seems weird; so why are so many people who are pro-SJ's siding with Kotaku if Gawker is problematic on a whole?

To an extent it is reflexive, ie if Kotaku is attacked by gamergate- and the biggest GG group on reddit is 'KotakuInAction'- then it must be defended because they don't like it, and partly it is because it is a SJW site, if you don't know or don't care about the mothership's morals then you don't know or don't care.
 
At its heart Gawker is pure clickbait, they will publish anything that they think they can get away with and will get them clicks. Any 'moral' considerations and any unified policy on that is purely secondary to getting those clicks.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Zoraptor

[Bartimaeus]

But the issue about Reddit is not so much about free speech for me but rather how people use that free speech...so if you think free speech in respects to Reddit means you can insult people in anyway without consequence that's fine we can agree to disagree. Also another issue about Reddit was she attacked not just because she was a bad CEO, and all evidence points at the fact  she wasn't that great, but she was  attacked because she was a women and Asian. That's the issue I have

 

Why do some of you keep acting as though reddit has "free speech"? It doesn't: every subreddit is moderated by a different team of moderators who set rules and guidelines for their subreddits, and if you don't follow them, either the users downvote you to oblivion or the moderators delete your posts. That's about as much free speech as you can get here: less, in fact, because people can downvote posts they just don't care for, even if they're perfectly within the rules. If we were discussing the topics we have on Reddit instead of here, I would pretty much guarantee that some posters would never see the light of day: people like Volourn (among others) would never be able to post the posts they do without their posts disappearing from everyone's sight because of the downvotes. Based on what you're saying, I would think you would prefer that over the virtual free for all here, Bruce: these forums are probably some of the most "free speech"-y I've ever seen, where the moderators don't seem to give a hoot about most anything anyone says outside of a very few subjects: never mind if people are going off on rants with personal attacks and trolling and whatever else - just don't try to circumvent the swearing filters, . It's certainly "better" in that regard than Reddit, anyways.

 

So surly this should add some credibility to the overall validity ?

Keyword: should.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[ktchong]

Ellen Pao has just become a moderator of the AgainstMensRights subreddit.  So we now know where she was coming from when she enforced  her changes on Reddit.

Edited July 14, 2015 by ktchong

[cirdanx]

Ellen Pao has just become a moderator of the AgainstMensRights subreddit.  So we now know where she was coming from when she enforced  her changes on Reddit.

 

It´s not exactly news that she is/was a more, well radical feminist. And while i think she drags the meaning and good cause behind the word "feminist" into the dirty, like all self proclaimed SJW´s, she is not worthy of attention anymore because she lost a good part of her influence.

[BruceVC]

Ellen Pao has just become a moderator of the AgainstMensRights subreddit.  So we now know where she was coming from when she enforced  her changes on Reddit.

 

 

 

Ellen Pao has just become a moderator of the AgainstMensRights subreddit.  So we now know where she was coming from when she enforced  her changes on Reddit.

 

It´s not exactly news that she is/was a more, well radical feminist. And while i think she drags the meaning and good cause behind the word "feminist" into the dirty, like all self proclaimed SJW´s, she is not worthy of attention anymore because she lost a good part of her influence.

 

Who knows what she really thinks about men...but would you blame her if she was anti-men?

 

After the way she was treated 

 

cirdanx you shouldn't generalize about SJW ...also how do you know she was a radical feminist ?

[BruceVC]

 

But the issue about Reddit is not so much about free speech for me but rather how people use that free speech...so if you think free speech in respects to Reddit means you can insult people in anyway without consequence that's fine we can agree to disagree. Also another issue about Reddit was she attacked not just because she was a bad CEO, and all evidence points at the fact  she wasn't that great, but she was  attacked because she was a women and Asian. That's the issue I have

 

Why do some of you keep acting as though reddit has "free speech"? It doesn't: every subreddit is moderated by a different team of moderators who set rules and guidelines for their subreddits, and if you don't follow them, either the users downvote you to oblivion or the moderators delete your posts. That's about as much free speech as you can get here: less, in fact, because people can downvote posts they just don't care for, even if they're perfectly within the rules. If we were discussing the topics we have on Reddit instead of here, I would pretty much guarantee that some posters would never see the light of day: people like Volourn (among others) would never be able to post the posts they do without their posts disappearing from everyone's sight because of the downvotes. Based on what you're saying, I would think you would prefer that over the virtual free for all here, Bruce: these forums are probably some of the most "free speech"-y I've ever seen, where the moderators don't seem to give a hoot about most anything anyone says outside of a very few subjects: never mind if people are going off on rants with personal attacks and trolling and whatever else - just don't try to circumvent the swearing filters, . It's certainly "better" in that regard than Reddit, anyways.

 

 

Barti I meant to tell you I am sorry for criticizing Reddit. It was uncalled for and unnecessary...as I said I need to work on not being so sententious about websites that I actually not only don't care about but also I believe they have there purpose on the Internet 

[Fighter]

...but would you blame her if she was anti-men?

 

Is this a serious question?

[BruceVC]

 

...but would you blame her if she was anti-men?

 

Is this a serious question?

 

Yes ...you guys seem surprised that people would get resentful when attacked and insulted on a daily basis

 

I am not saying its right but its just the result of how she was treated ...if its true

[Fighter]

Bruce... Anti-men. ANTI-MEN. Not anti Gamergate, not anti MRA, not anti <insert group>. Anti-men. Your words.

 

I would assume someone who was a CEO would have the basic intelligence to figure this out. And you too.

 

Would I blame her? Yeah... for being a bigot. Which she would be.