[Flipside]

Thing is, I do kinda feel for the ex if what he wrote is genuinely what he had to go through, I've been through similar and it really does kick the stool out from under your feet psychologically speaking. Not sure I agree with spilling it all out over the Internet, it might be cathartic in the short term, but I doubt it does any real good in the long run.

As for the mess it's created, it seems it's just a non-researched knee-jerk reaction, the Internets favorite kind, personally, I'd be more concerned about impartiality from these magazines because of the growing habit of companies of adding caveats to review copies, and the high level of sponsorship these magazines get from advertizing by the companies that produce the games. THAT, to me, is a far more solid cause for concern than some girl who apparently confuses psychological abuse with feminism.

[666maslo666]

It is true that censorship when done by a private site is MUCH less serious than when done by government, reddit has a right to censor whatever they want. It may still not be very ethical, tough, especially for sites that were founded on free speech as major principle, such as reddit and 4chan.

[deathfun]

It is true that censorship when done by a private site is MUCH less serious than when done by government, reddit has a right to censor whatever they want. It may still not be very ethical, tough, especially for sites that were founded on free speech as major principle, such as reddit and 4chan.

I'll just quote this:
"The right to speak without censorship or restraint by the government."

Government being the key thing here. Any website, private institution or company can come up with policies that keep what you say in check without breaking any laws. I don't find it particularly unethical either specially when what you're posting on these sites are attacks on an individual

As the reddit thing said: They don't care if you say you dislike someone. They do care if your acts of dislike compromise the ability for that person to live without fear of attacks

[The E]

(like you can even doxx someone who already uses her real identity on the internet, lol. The word is so abused lately it has basically lost its original meaning - revealing IRL information of anonymous/pseudonymous posters).

So revealing Phone numbers belonging to Quinn and her family, cracking her various social media and paypal accounts, tracking down her address and other things doesn't count as doxxing because she uses her real name and not a pseudonym? What does it count as instead?

[Aardwolf]

Noun
censorship (countable and uncountable, plural censorships)
1. The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression or press, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated.

(source)

I was going to say "wow, you found one particular definition that says it has to be state"... but then I read it again, and that's not what it says. It says "state or group".

As the reddit thing said: They don't care if you say you dislike someone. They do care if your acts of dislike compromise the ability for that person to live without fear of attacks

And what of that one topic which contained nothing but deleted posts?

[Grizzly]

I posted this link 3 times already, the first occurance straight below your earlier post on this matter, and it explains that last question.

[deathfun]

I posted this link 3 times already, the first occurance straight below your earlier post on this matter, and it explains that last question.

I'll help you out here

The top three are the most pertinent:

    Keep Everyone Safe: You agree to not intentionally jeopardize the health and safety of others or yourself.

    Keep Personal Information Off reddit: You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity.

    Do Not Incite Harm: You agree not to encourage harm against people.

The top three are the most pertinent:

    Keep Everyone Safe: You agree to not intentionally jeopardize the health and safety of others or yourself.

    Keep Personal Information Off reddit: You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity.

    Do Not Incite Harm: You agree not to encourage harm against people.

The top three are the most pertinent:

    Keep Everyone Safe: You agree to not intentionally jeopardize the health and safety of others or yourself.

    Keep Personal Information Off reddit: You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity.

    Do Not Incite Harm: You agree not to encourage harm against people.

[Mongoose]

So let me ask more in general: even if these allegations against her were true, why should any of us give a single **** about it?  I certainly can't be assed to care if a few sites over-zealously delete posts, particularly sites which don't have a particularly strong reputation as places of rational discussion in the first place.

[666maslo666]

One thing to realize is that while reddit as a whole should be commited to free speech, individual subreddits are allowed to establish whatever rules they want.

[The E]

To get back to the topic of game journalist's bribability: It seems that sex is one thing that doesn't actually work, given that Nathan Grayson (the journalist under discussion) never actually wrote a review of Depression Quest.

Huh. Interesting, isn't it.

[Grizzly]

Depression quest isn't even a game. It's a public awareness tool (in the form of an interactive fiction) funded by an anti-depression charity.

[Aardwolf]

How rude.

How rude.

How rude.

The top three are the most pertinent:

    Keep Everyone Safe: You agree to not intentionally jeopardize the health and safety of others or yourself.

    Keep Personal Information Off reddit: You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity.

    Do Not Incite Harm: You agree not to encourage harm against people.

Every single post in an entire topic was deleted. Do you seriously mean to suggest, without having seen the actual content of those posts, that every single one of them was in violation? No ****ing way.

[Grizzly]

Aardwolf, this is now the fifth time I am posting this link which explains what happened, and the third time I am doing this in direct response to you. I am not sure how to continue further if you refuse to read it.

[Ulala]

nuke the internet!

It's the only way to be sure.

Assuming the allegations are even true, what this Zoey person did to her ex is certainly pretty ****ty (cheating always is). However, the rabid response to the allegations by the internet horde is definitely ****tier. Hopefully the ex will think more carefully next time before airing dirty laundry all over the net.

[deathfun]

And obviously I need to do this again

When Doxxing and witch hunts happen there is a set process we follow:

    ONE: Remove all offending content and report users up to Admin for ToS violations. Create automated methods to remove further Doxxing and threats.

    TWO: Contact the person at threat to make sure they realize the situation, what Reddit is doing to ensure their safety, and that they know to contact Moderators and/or Admin regarding this situation. This is why I reached out via twitter. This is a rule I hold myself to personally, and personally advocate for. Admin do not require this explicitly.

    THREE: Assess the initial point of the Witch hunt. If it's a problem, lock the thread entirely so any further breaches aren't possible.

Currently we're having to remove a lot of posts and comments due to these three rules. We're getting throwaway accounts every few seconds, and those are hugely inflating the "deleted" numbers. We are doing our best to keep comments removed to only violations of these three rules (plus egregious violations of Rule 10). But they're happening at an alarming rate.[/i]

This meant that bullet point 3, "lock down the source" became a requirement. From that point on, any comment in that initial thread would be deleted by Reddit.

This meant that bullet point 3, "lock down the source" became a requirement. From that point on, any comment in that initial thread would be deleted by Reddit.

    THREE: Assess the initial point of the Witch hunt. If it's a problem, lock the thread entirely so any further breaches aren't possible.

One thing to realize is that while reddit as a whole should be commited to free speech, individual subreddits are allowed to establish whatever rules they want.

Suppose you could say that it runs on a similar way to how Free Speech works in reality. While the main reddit creators won't interfere (ie the Government) it won't stop the individuals who created the subreddits (private institutions) from policing their own stuff

[Lorric]

Aardwolf, this is now the fifth time I am posting this link which explains what happened, and the third time I am doing this in direct response to you. I am not sure how to continue further if you refuse to read it.

Have you read the comments underneath? People are complaining that suppression is taking place outside of those rules on a large scale.

[deathfun]

Those are also the same people claiming that it's the fault of the mods that Ms. Quinn is being subjected to such attacks

There's some other stuff about it preventing civil discussion from happening, but by having to sift through 15000 legit comments that grow on a minute basis for that *one* guy who decides to go "Hey, this person deserves pain here's a whole bunch of info on them" basically makes a mods job extremely painful to do. That's where the overall "delete" button comes in

[Aardwolf]

Well that quoted stuff  is very different from what you posted earlier, deathfun.

@Joshua: sorry, I assumed the thing that I had repeated at me 3x in one post was the important part. Blame deathfun.

[Polpolion]

Noun
censorship (countable and uncountable, plural censorships)
1. The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression or press, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated.

(source)

In addition, even mentioning censorship in relation to this incident is laughable; clearly nobody's freedom of expression is being curtailed, as negative opinions of Ms. Quinn obviously aren't encountering difficulty being disseminated.

Did reddit not actually delete posts or something? Reddit moderators deleting posts satisfies your definition. Bleeping swear words on television is a form of censorship, book burnings are a form of censorship, SLAPP cases are a form of censorship, redacting personal information from FOIA requests is a form of censorship, halting news distribution is a form of censorship, why would removing user's comments on the internet be any different? The fact that you can still express your ideas elsewhere doesn't make an act not censorship, and it doesn't matter if what you're saying is against the rules, it's still censorship. Whether or not this is a bad thing here is beyond my level of interest, I just don't see how we're fuddling what's normally a clear term.

[Lorric]

I just don't see how we're fuddling what's normally a clear term.

I'd be interested too. The same thing happened in the paedophile thread, he was too wrapped up in locking horns with people over semantics to realise what was going on.

Anyway, I'm sure we can just bypass it by using the word "suppression".