10

I'm new here, some thoughts on the current policy.

posted by go1dfish on introductions

Posting content of any kind that incites discrimination, hate or violence towards one person or a group of people because of their belonging to a race, religion or nation is strictly prohibited.

This is actually a pretty decent and interesting approach. Personally I prefer total freedom, but if you do want to prevent this sort discrimination this is a pretty solid and honest approach to doing so. Much moreso than reddit.

One thing that should be clarified is specifically what you mean wrt to "belong to a .... nation"

Specifically is it allowable to incite hatred (or even violence) against a person for being a politician of a given nation?

In other words: can users agitate for (potentially violent) revolution on phuks? (Note this is not my intention in using the site, I am indeed a pacifist)

I ask this because the founders of reddit once suggested that they imagined "Common Sense" would be posted on their platform if it exited at the time of the American Revolution. But these days reddit's policies against violent content are so broad and subjective that such a manifesto would likely be banned.

Additionally, accounts may be suspended for reasons not listed in this agreement.

This seems a bit ridiculously broad and serves to weaken an otherwise quite solid TOS for a site like this.

> Posting content of any kind that incites discrimination, hate or violence towards one person or a group of people because of their belonging to a race, religion or nation is strictly prohibited. This is actually a pretty decent and interesting approach. Personally I prefer total freedom, but if you do want to prevent this sort discrimination this is a pretty solid and honest approach to doing so. Much moreso than reddit. One thing that should be clarified is specifically what you mean wrt to "belong to a .... nation" Specifically is it allowable to incite hatred (or even violence) against a person for being a politician of a given nation? In other words: can users agitate for (potentially violent) revolution on phuks? (Note this is not my intention in using the site, I am indeed a pacifist) I ask this because the founders of reddit once suggested that they imagined "Common Sense" would be posted on their platform if it exited at the time of the American Revolution. But these days reddit's policies against violent content are so broad and subjective that such a manifesto would likely be banned. > Additionally, accounts may be suspended for reasons not listed in this agreement. This seems a bit ridiculously broad and serves to weaken an otherwise quite solid TOS for a site like this.

9 comments

[–] go1dfish [OP] 3 points (+3|-0)

It that's the case, have you considered looking into alternate hosting solutions?

[–] E-werd 4 points (+4|-0)

I think it's a matter of finding good hosting. If it's US hosting then this rule is going to be pretty much the same no matter what because of the laws of the land. If you start hosting in places like Switzerland or something, then it's a matter of poor performance because of distance from the majority of the users. It also gets super expensive.

If you're starting a movement like that, you're probably best off keeping it off conventional internet anyway for different reasons.

[–] go1dfish [OP] 2 points (+2|-0)

I speak of revolutions primarily as an extreme example to find boundaries of what a site is willing to permit.

raddle provides tor hidden service access which is pretty cool IMO.

[–] Skyrock 3 points (+3|-0)

Edited

As with all edge cases it would effectively come down to a game of chicken between the admins/mods and the hosting company. Post the edge case content, see if the hoster notices it, and then see if he takes any action.

The real question is how far Phuks admins/mods would go in playing chicken when users initiate it, and when they would pull the brakes to be on the safe side.

Load more (1 comment)