1 year ago11 points(+0/-0/+11Score on mirror)1 child
Look what u/c did to c/niggers:
He made up some fraudulent claim that the only mod violated site rules and permabanned him so he could take over the sub and make himself the only active mod then completely restricted all new posts so the sub can't get any new content.
And he lied again all the times I requested to take over the modship of the sub, finally admitting that even though he claims that the site allows all free speech legal in the USA that he did it because he doesn't want this site to turn into some SJW buzzword slur that he used, I don't remember exactly.
Finally, because I called him out on it every time he showed up in a thread telling more lies he actually shadowbanned me from c/Meta y putting my username on a wordblock list so any post I make in c/Meta, such as the post about the east Asian spammer in c/Immigration which started posting in other more active subs, are automatically removed for the bullshit reason "politics".
1 year ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)3 children
One thing that must be considered is plausible deniability. Those words may be banned so the site owner can say "look, I tried to stop hate speech but I have no control over what the communities post". It's a good idea in case of criminal or civil proceedings - I'd probably have done the same.
If you really need to search for nigger, go to google and type
"nigger site:scored.co"
1 year ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)1 child
The problem is that one can't claim their forum supports free speech and censor hate speech at the same time. If the site needs to censor to avoid litigation then so be it, but they shouldn't claim to support freedom of speech while doing it.
It's a fine line to walk for sure. They can promote freedom of speech but they need to avoid being prosecuted for PROMOTING hate speech. "How am i promoting hate speech?!? look at all these banned search words!"
What I'm trying to say is that walking the line is an impossibility because the two are mutually exclusive. Free speech is hate speech; to promote free speech is to promote hate speech by their own admission. This necessitates that one cannot be against hate speech and simultaneously for free speech.
I agree that the two are mutually exclusive and that hate speech is free speech, but certain things let you present something a certain way in court if it comes to it. You want your ass covered if a prosecutor ever comes knocking. If you allow pretty much any speech (which honestly, IS the case on scored) but censor SEARCHING for "jew" or "nigger" or whatever it can be dressed up as "fighting hate speech" while still actually really allowing it. "Your honor, since searching for racist terms was disabled I had no way of knowing that the site was full of hate speech and racism!".
Drug dealers do similar shit too "just in case" - waaaay back in the day I knew a guy that was a coke dealer. All of the people in that group were sponsoring kids in africa/south america so that if they ever got busted "they were doing something positive with the money".
The words aren't even banned. If anything this seems to be basic, and very minor powerlevel hiding.
Everyone can still make a posts about hating niggers, and we can all discuss it. But random lefties can't come to the site and with a simple search say that that the site has 260,000 toplevel posts about hating niggers.
I understand but the fact is that conpro would not exist if the site owner was actively supressing free speech. 90% of the posts are racism. It still gives him plausible deniability just in case.