955
Reddit will warn users who repeatedly upvote banned content
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
955 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
64075 readers
5028 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They aren't and, if they were, is that a problem?
Look at what right-wing echo chambers have led to. Look at what the "centrist" internet has led to.
Its 2025 and there are still people on the Fediverse convinced that the problem is the "left". Utterly divorced from reality.
My ONLY problem with the left is they preach tolerance but are ALWAYS the ones to start the abuse, insults, name calling and threats when they are disagreed with.
On a place light Reddit most subs will just ban you for showing any right leaning opinions. Or any opinion that goes against their narrative. That's not what tolerance is.
First off, the group that I've always experienced starting with outright hate and name calling has been the right. Look at two protests, one by leftists, one by the right wing, on the same issue, and you will almost always find the most aggressive, slur using, name calling people on the right making themselves known far before anyone on the left will actually start doing anything even remotely similar.
And secondly, tolerance doesn't work when dealing with the intolerant. Consider this: Hitler is a brand new figure, comes into the public square, and starts preaching his views. Do we tolerate him, or do we not tolerate him? We should tolerate him, because after all, tolerance is good, right? Well, of course not, because his ideology is intolerant, and directly attacks the tolerant, extinguishing them from society.
The only way you maintain tolerance is by being intolerant of intolerance.
If a conservative states that trans people shouldn't be allowed to exist in public spaces, and the left shuns that person and ostracizes them, the left is being intolerant, but so is the conservative, who if they had their way, would have then eliminated far more presumably tolerant trans people from public life, if given the chance.
However, conservatives will then frame this as the left being intolerant, and act as if it's some kind of hypocrisy to try and preserve tolerance by being intolerant of intolerant ideologies.
Because many subs have moderators that respect marginalized groups that are often the ones attacked by conservatives.
If someone comes into your community, and begins spouting off an ideology that's explicitly harmful to members of that group, the most tolerant thing a moderator can do when given two choices:
is the second, because otherwise your community is now persistently allowing in someone who is intolerant of the others in the community.
Because that statement is not just fundamentally wrong, (male and female aren't genders, they're sexes, even sex is a spectrum of characteristics that can't be cleanly defined in 100% of cases, so a blanket statement that only 1 and 2 exist when 3, 4, 5, etc do as well fundamentally fails even when it comes to sex, let alone social identity characteristics and expression) but it is used to justify erasing trans people from existence, and is the core statement that allows for anti-trans policies to exist.
That statement is directly used to justify and further policies that directly harm trans people, and thus it isn't just a difference in opinion, but a clear and obvious case of intolerance that we know leads to real harm.
If you'd like any further explanation of why exactly that statement is incorrect, I'd be happy to provide it.
Apologies, but considering I'm American, I don't have much of a personal social context for the events, so do take my opinions here with the understanding I don't follow UK politics much. I agree that any violence there was likely extreme, at least based on my very limited understanding of the party's politics, but that is, of course, what seems to be an isolated incident.
As I don't think we share as much direct societal context, I'm fine with dropping this point against your argument if you don't wish to continue it, especially considering it's a little subjective in terms of, say, statistically determining which group is more likely to be aggressive, since I haven't seen many actual studies or meta-analyses on that particular topic in specific.
That is because "the left" might have a few members that just so happen to be better read and have considered some of Popper's writings.
On such a note, I presume these right-leaning opinions aren't about the virtues of conservative fiscal policy?
There are many right wing views, views that are now sadly becoming more and more mainstream, that should not be tolerated. If right wingers had faced actual consequences when espousing their hatred of minorities, we might not be looking at a US government that wants to cozy up to Putin and distance their long term allies while stripping away the rights of US citizens.
Also, neither were designed specifically as such, unlike social sites like Truth. Plus, Twitter and Facebook are heavily dominated by right leaning groups.
i said reddit is mostly a reposting site of Xitter, TRUTH SOCIAL, and FB posts. which is all right wing garbages. and also posting article from right wing sources.