Reddit bans anti-vaccine subreddit r/NoNewNormal after site-wide protest
Reddit continues to insist that its sitewide administrative policies are based on <i>behaviour</i> rather than <i>content</i>, though it appears that this is a somewhat narrow distinction, and that behaviours which draw attention … tend to be associated with questionable content.<p>I’m not criticising the action. I support it. (The reasons are complex and difficult to articulate, though what I had to say ... on Reddit ... about limitations on speech some six years ago seems strongly appropriate.  <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;old.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;dredmorbius&#x2F;comments&#x2F;2g8e8c&#x2F;shouting_no_fire_in_a_warming_world_as_a_clear&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;old.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;dredmorbius&#x2F;comments&#x2F;2g8e8c&#x2F;shoutin...</a>)<p>It&#x27;s the rationalisation which seems thin.<p>The more so as what I’d based that argument on at the time --- falsely claiming no harm where a harm clearly existed is precisely at the centre of current discussions of the topic. This also seems to be a major, though under-discussed mode, of deceptive speech, and more pointedly a mode in which the downplaying of risk accrues benefits and gains to the parties promoting that message.<p>That said, Reddit’s lack of principled leadership and very-late-to-the-party redress continues to erode trust in the platform among those who live in a reality-based world and support strong epistemic systems.  Which is one of the key challenges the firm faces: neither of the two principle sides in this matter are or will be happy with how it aquits itself.<p>I’ll note as well that the principles of “free speech” are not synonymous with the US first amendment (which concerns only government limitations), that speech on a privately-operate platform is both not the same as government censorship, but also not dissimilar in many regards, and that in any regard, free speech itself is not an absolute principle but one existing in balance with other considerations. I’ve been thinking in terms of a set of related, though often conflicting principles as <i>Autonomous Communication</i> (or variously:  &quot;informational autonomy&quot; or &quot;communications autonomy&quot; --- naming things is hard --- discussed in “Which has primacy?”). The rights to privacy, free-assocation (both positive and negative), against self-incrimination, of obligated disclosure, and to accurate information, all collide, though there are some common principles which might help in adjudicating amongst them. I’m not aware of others offering any similar construction.<p>See: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;joindiaspora.com&#x2F;posts&#x2F;622677903778013902fd002590d8e506" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;joindiaspora.com&#x2F;posts&#x2F;622677903778013902fd002590d8e...</a>