This comment was in a post about a guy who openly spilled secrets then got fired.
https://www.reddit.com/r/golf/comments/1dynric/rip_to_the_augusta_ama_guy_yesterday_who_was_not/
This comment was in a post about a guy who openly spilled secrets then got fired.
https://www.reddit.com/r/golf/comments/1dynric/rip_to_the_augusta_ama_guy_yesterday_who_was_not/
Because there is no discernable difference between you telling an honest story about your Turkish coworkers and a racist using online anonymity to rile people up against minorities.
I think that should be decided by the readers of the comment not by reddit. Unless I actually incite hate or violence. Or maybe if I had a history of leaving comments like that. But it was the first time I talked about it. Or if my account was new or a bot. I don’t like to assume the worst about people just because they criticise something adjacent to a controversial topic. That’s how problems get swept under the rug and never solved.
Except if you leave it solely to the readers of the comment, the communications platform is still flooded by racists and bigots of all stripes. Sure, a lot of their comments are downvoted, but by giving them a platform you’re giving them a way to degrade the quality of the platform they’re on, drive away reasonable users and eventually take over and shit up the place unrestricted. Just like the nazi bar story.
Downvotes are nowhere near as effective as moderation when it comes to keeping hate off of a platform. Sorry if you posted something in good faith and moderation censored you, but that doesn’t make moderation as a concept wrong.
(Also, I kind of agree with you that there should be more signals available to moderators than just “does this comment mention race negatively”. However, I’m not sure you want reddit scoring what kind of person you are and attaching that score to every moderation action.)
Yes and FURTHERMORE, POE’S LAW EXISTS
and it’s NOT actually “just” about parody - it’s all too often impossible to tell honest anecdote apart from ideological rhetoric.
How would you solve problems pertaining to immigration when you can’t talk about experiences. There is actually a large problem of parallel societies in germany that has been rampant for decades because no one wants to talk about it. I mean like people doing what I talked about in my comments or not learning the countrys language in decades and having no contact to native germans. I my comment I was actually talking about people who were born here and their familys lived here for generations. In western europe in general it’s driving people to the extreme right, because no one dares talk about it in a normal and legitimate way. Censorship only makes these problems worse. There needs to be a way to talk about this topic with some nuance, not just blatant hate rhetoric.
Poe’s law doesn’t mean ban anything that’s edging a bit close to what you think it is. It’s like arresting people for a crime they didn’t commit but because they act suspiciously according to the eye of the authority.
I don’t think Moderation as a concept is wrong. I also filed an appeal, so i’ll see what they say after taking a closer look. But I sense a huge problem of people not being able to understand any nuances in this topic. So they just leave the whole thing for the extreme right as their talking point.
Well not if you strip it from all context and the nuance of OPs specific word choice.
Because I could tell a story about my Turkish co-worker that ends like:
“my co-worker of specific race is doing dodgy shit and it’s so harmful for the whole community that he’s doing this, especially with how much anti-ethnic group hate is going around, he’s giving everyone a bad name and I’m worried his behaviour as an individual aashole who happens to be race is going to start a spree of hate crimes against others who aren’t doing anything wrong, because most people aren’t, my co-worker is”
And I would argue that this story is fundamentally different from just leaving it as “my Turkish co-worker is doing dodgy stuff”.