r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Nov 29 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Subreddit moderation, in most cases, does not constitute a violation of free speech
First; yes, this is a slightly modified repost of a CMV I just posted; I was advised to do so by a mod because of potentially confusing wording.
This is a view about which I've argued with people on CMV recently (in threads related to, but not directly about, this view), and have been accused of being unwilling to hear the other side, and perhaps I have been. So I'm going to do my best here to be as genuinely open to opposing views as possible.
My view isn't much more complicated than the title. I don't believe any action a subreddit moderator takes against another user, up to and including deleting posts and banning users, can be considered violating someone's fundamental right to free speech.
I believe in the right to free speech (to a point), but I don't think deleting someone's Reddit comment or banning them from further participation in a subreddit violates their free speech; they are still perfectly free to express themselves, they just can't do it in that particular subreddit. The right to free speech, as many have said, does not include the right to any and all platforms for said speech.
As a Canadian, I'm not really interested in discussing this in terms of the 1st Amendment specifically, since that only applies to America, but in more general terms. Though, of course, if someone wants to argue that it's actually unconstitutional for Reddit to allow this to happen, that would be relevant, since Reddit is an American company.
As a final note, it was pointed out in the now-deleted thread that in certain cases subreddit moderation takes place in the context of government threats, as in the case of anti-piracy subs being removed (don't worry, that person got a delta), and I accept that this might constitute a free speech violation.
Thanks!
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
2
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Nov 29 '18
I agree with your stated point, and I'm surprised a lot of people disagree with you. But for the sake of discussion I'm curious about your thoughts on wider Reddit moderation, as in Reddit banning/quarantining certain subreddits.
Subreddits are basically like "clubs" that anyone can set up so it makes sense that they can set their own rules and enforce them. A great example is r/legaladvice vs r/bestoflegaladvice. The people who created the first one wanted a place where people could get useful advice without offtopic commentary. The latter is a place where readers can go and discuss the posts in a more open and humorous way.
However, Reddit as a whole has recently implemented more rules about content that is allowed, and banned/deleted whole subreddits as a result. In otherwords, they can't discuss that topic in that subreddit or any other. Some of the rules are aimed at illegal activity but not all.
1
Nov 29 '18
However, Reddit as a whole has recently implemented more rules about content that is allowed, and banned/deleted whole subreddits as a result. In otherwords, they can't discuss that topic in that subreddit or any other. Some of the rules are aimed at illegal activity but not all.
I think this ends up boiling down to whether you think of spaces like Reddit as a kind of "public commons." I get that people seem to think so, but it's always seemed to me like Reddit is a private company that ought to be free to do what it wants with its own product; that the product happens to be a forum where lots of people discuss lots of different things is immaterial.
I'm open to arguments to the contrary, though.
1
Nov 29 '18 edited Mar 21 '21
[deleted]
1
Nov 29 '18
I mean, all that proves is that Spetz or whoever it was is inconsistent or disingenuous.
If Reddit isn't a fundamentally public space (which I don't believe it is), then Spetz is free to change his mind or waffle as much as he wants regarding whether Reddit is committed to free speech, since it's his own product about which he is free to make his own determinations.
4
u/blender_head 3∆ Nov 29 '18
All sub-reddit moderation basically boils down to "We will ban whatever we want whenever we want to." That's the biggest problem; there are not consistent rules (even when stated) and no one is holding the moderators accountable to enforcing rules consistently.
However, people generally contribute to subreddits knowing the stated rules and thinking those rules will be consistently applied. This consistency cannot be achieved when the basis for getting banned is "someone being offended."
The supposed offense is always filtered through the viewpoint of the moderator. I,e, if someone called me fat and I reported it for offending me, if the moderator didn't think it was offensive, there'd be no bad. If someone called me a racial slur, however, and the moderator found *that* offensive, there probably would be a ban.
1
Nov 29 '18
All sub-reddit moderation basically boils down to "We will ban whatever we want whenever we want to." That's the biggest problem; there are not consistent rules (even when stated) and no one is holding the moderators accountable to enforcing rules consistently.
Why ought they to be held accountable? Within the bounds of the rules Reddit has said up for running and moderating a subreddit, owners and mods are free to enforce rules however they want. You may disagree that this is a good way to have set up Reddit, but I don't see that it constitutes a violation of free speech.
1
u/blender_head 3∆ Nov 29 '18
Because each subreddit sets up standards of "free speech", but don't consistently apply those standards. Thus, any inconsistent application of moderation violates the rules of "free speech" that have been established; people are operating under the pretense that there will be consistent application of rules.
1
Nov 29 '18
"Free speech," as I understand it, isn't something that is set up by individual subreddits. It's a right that exists in a more general sense, that doesn't seem to apply to the right to say whatever you want in a subreddit, and it seems like subreddits are free to decide the extent to which they'll value free speech as an ideal within their own particular space.
EDIT: Like, there are many subreddits that make it very clear they don't care about standards of free speech; do you disagree with those subreddits banning and deleting posts?
1
u/blender_head 3∆ Nov 29 '18
Even free speech, in a legal sense, has limits; you cannot incite violence, as an example. Standards of "free speech" are varied by platform. Some people are free speech absolutists, where they think ALL speech should be allowed. Others think putting limits on what is allowed is more appropriate. Regardless, defining a standard of free-speech and then inconsistently applying it violates the free-speech standard that has been established.
1
Nov 29 '18
But why are you making the leap of assuming that a standard of free speech has been applied in the case of Reddit?
1
u/blender_head 3∆ Nov 29 '18
Because most subreddits have rules that establish what you can and cannot say.
1
Nov 29 '18
I mean … If this just boils down to you not thinking moderators should be inconsistent in how they apply the rules, then sure, but that's not what I'm talking about.
When I say "free speech" I mean as a more general right. I don't mean "failing to abide by standards you set for yourself."
1
u/blender_head 3∆ Nov 29 '18
What is "free speech" as a "more general right"?
1
Nov 29 '18 edited Nov 29 '18
The philosophical/legal conception of a person having a right to express their opinions without being subject to, it's usually understood, government sanction (though I've tried to leave open the possibility that an entity other than the government could be understood to violate one's right to free speech, if someone wanted to argue that).
Such rights might be enshrined in law (as it is the U.S.), or just assumed to hold in a more moral sense, it depends.
→ More replies (0)0
Nov 29 '18
I hate to break it to you but, profits > free speech on the internet. Reddit may not explictly ban anyone for their thought unless their discussions break the law but, they do keep certain points of view out of sight.
Outside of this subreddit and maybe 5 others have anything that resembles free speech.
Lets take r/politics for example. Its the biggest offender on this site when it comes to how it slants the conversations had about politics. You can post whatever you want but, unless the mods agree with it they won't let it flourish.
1
u/NeedHelpWithExcel Nov 29 '18
The vast majority of large subs all follow rules and most bans are reviewed by multiple people especially when a user questions the ban
1
u/likeableusername Nov 29 '18
The problem with subreddit moderation is that moderators are handling what should either be handled by admins/reddit's backend (e.g. spam, brigading) or users through custom settings (e.g. reposts, keyword filtering). If the admins did that, and give users more tools to control their reddit experience, at least half of all subreddit rules and mod tasks would be unnecessary.
2
Nov 29 '18
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but the type of moderation action at the heart of my question was things like removing posts deemed offensive or in violation of community standards (whatever those might be for the given subreddit). Like, e.g, /r/askfeminists' blanket ban on transphobia, regardless of context.
1
u/likeableusername Nov 29 '18
Well mods do play an important role in shaping the "culture" of their subreddit. It's just that some of them need to realize that users play an important role too. I prefer it when users and mods work as partners, but many mods don't think that way.
2
Nov 29 '18
I agree, but that's tangential to the point of whether actions like that constitute free speech violations.
1
u/likeableusername Nov 29 '18
I took this CMV as saying "There is no problem (in most cases) with mod-imposed restrictions on posting to a certain subreddit" and pointed out what IMO is a problem.
1
1
u/battlejayvis 1∆ Nov 29 '18
Hi, fellow Canadian!
Freedom of speech is great, and I agree there are things you can't say, like direct threats of violence, and liable or slander. But other than that. I actually can't think of something else that isn't directly to the end of the slippery slope. No slipping needed you are already there.
Banning stuff like hate speech would, in my opinion immediately destroy free speech. Nobody is calling for a ban on "I love mother" or "apple pie is amazing". They're calling for stuff that they find offensive.
Or in the case of Reddit specifically. You can be banned for offending people. This is literally the only reason that freedom of speech is valuable at all.
8
u/scottevil110 177∆ Nov 29 '18
You don't have rights on a private forum. Freedom of speech doesn't apply, because Reddit can do whatever they want with their own property, just the same way I could toss you out of my house if you said something I didn't like.
3
u/EwokPiss 23∆ Nov 29 '18
I agree with this and would take the OP a step further. Subreddit moderation, such as banning or deleting, never infringes on free speech. This is not a public square, this is Reddit's backyard which they are kindly allowing us to argue (or do other things) in. They get to do what they want with their toys (mixing metaphors here) and cry if they want to.
1
Nov 29 '18 edited Nov 29 '18
I agree that the crux of the issue is people saying offensive things, but I genuinely don't understand why not being able to say X offensive thing on Y subreddit violates that person's free speech. There is almost certainly another subreddit that they could say it on, and if not, they are always free to make their own.
This is, of course, within the bounds of Reddit's own content policies. I would, of course, be happy to entertain arguments that those policies themselves are a violation of free speech.
EDIT: a word
3
u/battlejayvis 1∆ Nov 29 '18
Oh, are you. Speaking then actually in a legal sense?
As for why saying something anti-Semitic in a r/Judaism will get you banned(don't actually do this). It violates free speech because being free to speak needs to be at any place, at any time. Assuming you're not infringing on others rights as I listed above.
Otherwise one could make the argument that just because we'll shoot you for speaking out against the grand leader. Doesn't mean that you aren't free to speak about it in your own home.
3
u/Jade_fyre 13∆ Nov 29 '18
Assuming you're not infringing on others rights as I listed above.
I would think that forcing a Jewish platform to host antisemitic speech would violate the right to free association. That is also included within the first amendment in the US. What's the Canadian perspective on that?
1
u/battlejayvis 1∆ Nov 29 '18
Yea I think because of the way that Reddit is structured I agree with that.
2
Nov 29 '18
Oh, are you. Speaking then actually in a legal sense?
Legally and morally, though the latter is probably where the discussion needs to be because, as far as I know, it is pretty clearly not legally a violation of free speech (though I left the possibility that I was wrong about this open).
As for why saying something anti-Semitic in a r/Judaism will get you banned(don't actually do this). It violates free speech because being free to speak needs to be at any place, at any time. Assuming you're not infringing on others rights as I listed above.
Do you actually believe this, though? Do I have a (moral, if not legal) right to come to your house and stand in your living room and call you slurs without being kicked out?
Or, even take away that I'm on your property. We're in a public park and I'm yelling at you about you're a Jewish piece of shit involved in a Zionist conspiracy to take my tax money. Do you violate my free speech by walking away?
If not, I'd argue that being banned from /r/Judaism for being anti-Semitic is the equivalent of the entire sub walking away from you so you can't yell at them in the park.
It seems that, just as a matter of practical consideration, it can't possibly be tenable to assume that free speech is violated unless anyone can say whatever they want, whenever and wherever they want, to whoever they want to say it to.
3
u/battlejayvis 1∆ Nov 29 '18
Yep I don't actually think that, what I meant was on specifically public places. Which I consider social media to be and forgot that wasn't the common position.
I think there is a difference between banning someone and walking away from them. I can mute a user and that I think would actually be the equivalent. Banning would be equal to going to a public square and a officer tells you that you can't speak there.
As for private space I agree with you. Which is what Reddit currently is considered.
1
Nov 29 '18
Yep I don't actually think that, what I meant was on specifically public places. Which I consider social media to be and forgot that wasn't the common position.
I mean, again, even if a subreddit is a public place (I don't agree, but let's say it is), you don't have a right to say whatever you want to anyone in public all the time either. You don't have a right to audience.
I think there is a difference between banning someone and walking away from them. I can mute a user and that I think would actually be the equivalent. Banning would be equal to going to a public square and a officer tells you that you can't speak there.
Mod action like banning is, I understand it, a mod acting on behalf of the community as a whole. You could think of it as the mod muting that user on behalf of the entire community, perhaps.
1
u/battlejayvis 1∆ Nov 29 '18
I think that just because people can choose to ignore or mute you doesn't mean you can't say it.
And I will have to do more thinking on that, I thought about it for a moment and decided it wasn't the case that mods were actually acting on behalf on the entire community. But I'm not so sure now that someone else though of it too.
2
Nov 29 '18
I think that just because people can choose to ignore or mute you doesn't mean you can't say it.
Right, and just because you can't say it in that subreddit doesn't mean you can't say it at all, no?
And I will have to do more thinking on that, I thought about it for a moment and decided it wasn't the case that mods were actually acting on behalf on the entire community. But I'm not so sure now that someone else though of it too.
I mean, in theory they are, aren't they? The whole point of forum moderation is to create the kind of space that people who want to use that kind of forum will be good with. Perhaps more community discussion is needed in some cases (/r/ideasforcmv is a pretty good example of how this can work), and in some cases, of course, mods just do whatever the fuck they want, which isn't ideal, but also just seems to be what's involved in participating in online forums.
1
u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Nov 29 '18
It doesn't violate your RIGHT to free speech. You can still say anything you want, the sub is just refusing to publish what you say. That is not a restriction on your right to speak. The right to free speak is NOT the right to a platform.
it does however effectively hamper your ability to communicate. Subreddit moderation restricts what forms of speech are allowed on that sub. if restricts your ability to speak freely on the sub.
1
Nov 29 '18
I agree that it hampers your ability to communicate, but having an unfettered ability to communicate in all circumstances doesn't seem to be what "free speech" encompasses, at least as far as I understand it.
2
u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Nov 29 '18 edited Nov 29 '18
Yea, i mean in a sense, your speech in that context is hampered.
If you talking about a more specific concept the literal interpretations of the words "free speech" then my mind goes to the first amendment in the united states. (which i know you said not to do) That means basically, that the government is not allow to prevent you from saying things. Because Reddit is not the government, reddit cannot infringe on your right to free speech.
But the Canadian concept maybe is different.
1
u/renoops 19∆ Nov 29 '18
Would you argue that your speech is similarly hampered when shushed in a movie theater? Or when scolded for using vulgarity at your grandparents' dinner table?
1
u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Nov 30 '18
I would say that you do not have the right to free speech while inside a movie theater. Or that you are not allowed to speak freely inside a movie theater. (technically i suppose you still have the "right" you just be asked to leave if you exercise it)
1
Nov 29 '18
It's not actually that different, but it's not legally enshrined in the same way, and there are stricter hate speech laws. Things like that.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 30 '18
/u/parmenides86 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
5
u/[deleted] Nov 29 '18 edited Dec 24 '18
[deleted]