Reddit isn't happy about President Trump's "anti-censorship" executive order

submitted by scrubking from reclaimthenet.org

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Nanner 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

A site would turn to trash fast without some sort of moderation. Also, do you really think that the true intent is to protect you from censorship?

This will kill free speech by killing all of the platforms.

Magnora censored and banned that Nazi dude the other day. Saidit would fall too.

[–]flugegeheimen 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

A site would turn to trash fast without some sort of moderation.

"some sort of moderation" also includes self-moderation and, miraculously, it also doesn't make site liable for user content because a user does it for himself rather than site on someone's behalf.

This will kill free speech by killing all of the platforms.

You are basically saying "forcing to make a choice between having a free speech or die will kill free speech" which doesn't make much sense. Some platforms will definitely stay censoring shitholes while they can and then drop the user-generated content completely (e.g. certain SJW propaganda rags already dropped comment sections). Okay, this will free some niche and audience for platforms with free speech and encourage it in general.

Magnora censored and banned that Nazi dude the other day.

And if he wasn't allowed to do that he could argue with his host that he can't, thus allowing fine gentlemen from IcePoseidon2 to stay.

[–]Nanner 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

And just hire an army of bots and shills to trash the site. I won't stay in a place like that where I have to sift through a bunch of crap to try and participate. Any posts would would slide off. Who would even stay to self-moderate? A pay processor and/or advertisers could still choose to not do business with whoever.

You seem to put a lot of trust in the govenment to think that they are trying to help vs trying to control.

[–]christnmusicreleasesIndependent 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

It's already that.

[–]theoracle 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Yes moderation is needed but why make it compulsory or only have one moderation option?

[–]Nanner 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Sure. Have more than one option, but let the people decide for themselves.

Do not let government pass laws and gain more control over sites.

They are not there to protect our rights or freedom of speech, but their own interests.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yes!

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed. I've proposed several times the idea of a community forum review to be judged by our peers regarding problems. But M7 wants to carry that burden and refuses to open up at all or delegate the process. This is a huge problem and potential weakness for SaidIt.