I am acknowledging the fact that one aspect of the core functionally of the site can be used & abused in certain situations, but there is more general upsides to the voting system for for a site made on voting on. If you don't like a democratic system of organizing by the appeal of masses who use it, & would rather have a linear feed of content where the newest content is the most important content, then you can sort by new (& if you are in a thread by old instead if you please), or go to another one of the hundreds if not thousands of forums on the internet that does that. Also downvotes remove stuff, if you truly are are interested in the opinions that drew the most aiur, then you can scroll to the bottom.

Which is why nobody lives in an actual democracy

You're moving the goalposts

What is the goal post I moved?

The discussion was about how Reddit is a "mistake", not about which sites I should use

It's actually worse than, say, a democratic system with rights, because your ability to have your voice heard is determined by other people's subjective like or dislike of it, and not even a majority

Which is precisely why brigading is a problem

Sorry, I meant to use the word someone instead of you, this was a poor use of word for target subject.

Even then, site preference doesn't discuss the core claim

Look, reddit gives a poster the "right" when the don't break the rules to state their thoughts, a poster just does not have the entitlement to receive equal attention as all other posters by all audiences regardless. If someone goes to the town square, they might have the place to express their opinion, but the audiences can ignore them because the speaker's opinion is uninteresting, the audiences can stick out their tongue at the speaker, the audiences can call the speaker's opinion garbage to encourage them to shut up, the audiences can recommend people ignore the speaker, the audiences can pay attention & praise another speaker over first speaker who is siting alone, the audiences can protest so loudly that they drown out the speaker with their own speech, but despite the control the audience has react to the speaker, they can not remove the speaker.

Heckler's veto isn't legit, which is what reddit's voting system ultimately boils down to

You can choose to not listen, but disrupting someone else's speech is unethical

And it' directly what the site promotes

Well there continuing the analogy, an alternative to the public square situation that what reddit provides, & that is formal debate environment that screens the audience only to those who are sit still & be quiet to provide a safe space for the speaker to have a platform regardless of their opinion.

Though I have difficulty thinking of stuff like that aside from platform that allows people to post content that people will have to go out of their way to find & mute comment sections.

Reddit is not a public square

Neither is the private garden in front of the Utah state capital building, except that it is used as one for the purpose of public discussion.

Beemann is also disregarding that I am using the "public square situation" as an analogy.

That's because your analogy is hilariously selective

It's like a public space, except for all the ways in which it isn't at all, including moderation and site formatting

I did also state that reddit gives a poster the "right" when the don't break the rules to state their thoughts, this analogy is used to highlight the limits of base user to user interaction where a base user has no authority to remove another base's post, the only individuals who have the authority to do that would be the rule.

No, you have no rights on reddit lol

You don't have a right because someone else isn't allowed to lawfully hit you in the face, you have a right because the government is restricted in their operation. Moderation on reddit can do what it likes

Which has caused some rather ugly upsets in the past few years

I highlighted “”right” when not breaking the rules” as the obvious limit to even “rights” having. Let us highlight The USA, the high point of the right to free speech still doesn’t allow people to make violent threats, allows you to sue people under the law for libel & slander, & have stance of authorities to use power the are afforded to shut people under matters of national security... Some right that is.

Your rights end where someone else's begin. Do we really have to go over the basics or are you going to stop being disingenuous?

regardless of what rights we believe in, i think redefining internet hardware as a public space is forcing companies to to associate and thereby transforming freedom of speech from a negative liberty right to a positive liberty right. you now must positively provide people with a platform, rather than step out of the way.

How do you square that given that it implies entitlement to labour?

I thought you were on the ancap end of things

i'm not in support of doing that

Ah ok

positive doesnt mean good in this context

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

I didn't mean because of the use of positive and negative rights

oh

I went from Ancap to Minarchist. I'm familiar

You mean, monarchist

I am thinking we are getting out figurative grounds of the analogy, Beemann, that I am trying to use to illustrate the base user to base user interaction, because in real life you can kill someone to shut them up, all analogies break down due to not being the literally thing it is being used to compared to. The reddit rules, moderation, & administration structure is not the semi-similar, but not a government structure that we assume acknowledges, allows & limits the bounds of laws & rights . The concept of the analogy is that ignore & criticize content while propping up other content with attention & praise, both content that was allowed to exist to compete against the other.

No, I mean minarchist, @missdanger
@da britian moderation is authoritarian by necessity, and the base system of Reddit lends itself to an underlying mob rule. Trying to draw weak comparisons to public squares wont work because it *isn't a good analogy*

But what can a mob on reddit actually do? Sure, the can upvote stuff & downvote stuff, they can comment on stuff, but they can't remove stuff.

They can systematically flag down content and make it much harder to find, to the point where it isn't shown by default