It's funny. I mean reddit made it very clear that the users of the banned subs are not welcome at reddit. This should have been perfect for them. No spilling of users into other subs, all the deplorables leave for greener (or whatever) pastures. Finally reddit is free of hate.
It almost sees like they thought all these people would just stop existing online.
Reddit doesn't learn that you can't kill dissent by silencing it.
Do they though? I find it hard to believe that they really thought this move will help their goals. Do they (et al) overestimate their grip on the conversation, oder do we underestimate peoples threshold for bullshit?
[EDIT]underestimate instead of overestimate[/EDIT]
To quote the Slate Star Codex article, "Neutral vs Conservative: The Eternal Struggle," now offline due to the NYT trying to dox the liberal author for refusing to be a progressive foot soldier:
Look. I read Twitter. I know the sorts of complaints people have about this blog. I’m some kind of crypto-conservative, I’m a traitor to liberalism, I’m too quick to sell out under the guise of “compromise”. And I understand the sentiment. I write a lot about how we shouldn’t get our enemies fired lest they try to fire us, how we shouldn’t get our enemies’ campus speakers disinvited lest they try to disinvite ours, how we shouldn’t use deceit and hyperbole to push our policies lest our enemies try to push theirs the same way. And people very reasonably ask – hey, I notice my side kind of controls all of this stuff, the situation is actually asymmetrical, they have no way of retaliating, maybe we should just grind our enemies beneath our boots this one time.
And then when it turns out that the enemies can just leave and start their own institutions, with horrendous results for everybody, the cry goes up “Wait, that’s unfair! Nobody ever said you could do that! Come back so we can grind you beneath our boots some more!”
Conservatives aren’t stuck in here with us. We’re stuck in here with them. And so far it’s not going so well. I’m not sure if any of this can be reversed. But I think maybe we should consider to what degree we are in a hole, and if so, to what degree we want to stop digging.
SSC is/was golden.
It was one of the (very) few places where you could actually hold discourse, and could actually disagree with one another.
One interesting measure of a site is how far of an outlier your views can visibly be while still being welcomed and discussed, and SSC was the winner on that metric. By far.
I'm suffering from SSC withdrawal already.
More like they expect everyone to drink the kool-aid.
By which I mean, a lot of people seem to expect that if you always force everyone to signal X, people with dissenting opinions will sooner or later go "everyone else is signaling X so X must be correct".
It's way over-naive naive Bayesian analysis taken to an extreme. i.e. "I think X is 10% likely, this person thinks X is definitely true, so I'll adjust to 11%, this person thinks X is definitely true so I'll adjust to 12%, etc, etc, X is definitely likely".
In practice, what happens is instead "I think X is 10% likely, but am being pushed to say X. This person says X is definitely true, but I think there's an 80% chance that everyone is being pushed to say X not just me. Adjust to 11% likely. This other person says X is also definitely true, but I think there's an 80% chance that everyone is being pushed to say X not just me and I'm not going to double-count. I still think X is 11% likely, and now think there's an 81% chance that everyone is being pushed to say X. Repeat.".
(This is also overly naive, but gets the idea across hopefully.)