The legal realism prevails with this stupid law, it will always prevail. You can both moderate / review / editorialize content, including political content, while simultaneously enjoying Section 230 protections.
This isn't a practical idea. People aren't always aware of their own biases and critics are also inclined to see bias even when there is none. There is no practical way to determine bias levels.
> Reddit is very happy to claim they are unbiased, neutral, hate free.
Are they? Can you point to an example of such a claim?
> But some preferred subreddits will ban people for heaving wrong gender or wrong race
Subbredits are run by users.
> They also tolerate hate speech, incitement to violence or even advocacy for genocide , if it matches their ideology.
Reddit would say they don't tolerate those things, you say they do, how do we determine who is right?
No, they are run day to day by users, but ultimately are at the discretion of the site owners. Case in point, this article we are discussing.
> Reddit would say they don't tolerate those things, you say they do, how do we determine who is right?
The behavior of the site owners? Reddit site owners treat different subreddits differently and different viewpoints differently, although there is single characteristic differences (gender, race, etc) because of the people and topics that are generated from the groups. Pre-censoring, is not uncommon, which has led up to this wrongthink penalty.
If you're challenging the history of reddit, you aren't informed enough to be discussing this and it's not worth rehashing.
The site owners don't ban users based on race and gender which is the claim I responded to.
> Reddit site owners treat different subreddits differently and different viewpoints differently
Well yes, that is how standards work, "different views" are treated differently based on how they stack up with respect to the standard. I understand that you're arguing that reddit applies the rules selectively, but reddit would argue that they apply them fairly, so how do you suggest this kind of conflict be resolved at scale? Who should decide if reddit is being fair or not?
> If you're challenging the history of reddit, you aren't informed enough to be discussing this and it's not worth rehashing.
If you want to make an argument then make it, but condescending declarations of a monopoly on the informed position does not do your case any favors.
I'm not making a case. I'm describing the state of the reddit culture. Whether you believe it or not, is incidental.
> The site owners don't ban users based on race and gender which is the claim I responded to.
Your statements were broader than that. Revisionism aside, you can get banned for voting on a post, and there are lots of rules (written and unwritten by each community) that can get you banned from the subreddit or reddit as a whole. Making statements about YOUR gender (or a number of other attributes) can also get you banned. Here, I'll do a google search for you (since you can't be bothered) for subreddit bans, to start you off: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=subredd...
You aren't informed enough to be discussing this and it's not worth rehashing.
That much is clear.
> I'm describing the state of the reddit culture. Whether you believe it or not, is incidental.
Very convincing. Oh, I know, you don't care about that in the least.
> Your statements were broader than that. Revisionism aside...
No, they weren't. You stated that the subreddits are ultimately controlled by the site owners, and I explained that the site owners don't ban people based on race and gender. Simple. Revisionism indeed.
> Making statements about YOUR gender (or a number of other attributes) can also get you banned. Here, I'll do a google search for you
The results of the google search does not support the claim you're making, like, not even a single result. Beyond that, mods can ban users for whatever reason they want, but the site owners do not ban people based on their race and gender, that claim is totally false.
> You aren't informed enough to be discussing this and it's not worth rehashing.
lol, a laughable assertion coming from someone who can't even cherry-pick google search results to support their argument. Stop wasting my time.
Not cherry picking to make an observation that documents the history. Its an ongoing, and well covered, topic for which you can demonstrably research without difficulty. Denial doesnt help either of us and causes me to question your sincerity. Good luck with whatever.
The answer is going to be a moving target. You're gonna have some government bureaucrats having to make rulings on these regulations.
And many of the proponents of this seem to fail to imagine a world where Donald Trump is ever not president. Imagine the power this would give the government against someone who plays fast and loose with 'facts'. "We've decided that the statements in this post were intentionally misleading, therefore they are a political statement, and the owners of the site promoted them in a way that they didn't do to this other post, therefore the owners are making a political statement and this is not a neutral site, which makes it liable for these other comments from other users that we're interpreting as violent threats."
This is unsustainable though, there is just too much content to filter. There is also the fact that lacking such protections the site will be targeted by bad-faith actors who intend to harm the site by posting lots of legally problematic content.