Submission + - Reddit bans Climate Change Deniers 1
ScottyLad writes: Several news sites have commented on a Grist article titled Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. Why don’t all newspapers do the same? by Reddit moderator Nathan Allan, which states "About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers. When a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your comment isn’t a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum."
In the article, Allen (PhD) somewhat condescendingly describes Reddit as a "window for those who are not scientists, who do not regularly talk with PhDs, and who may be unfamiliar with how science is discussed by scientists. In essence, it is a window into the Ivory Tower.", and states Reddit is "passionately dedicated to free speech". According to Allen, Reddit "generally resembles any scientific debate. That is, there are always numerous links to peer-reviewed science to support positions, people don’t deliberately mislead or misrepresent content, and there is a basic level of respect shared regardless of position."
In Allen's world, the science of Climate Change is a running battle between "hard-working scientists whose research supported and furthered our understanding of man-made climate change" against "true believers [climate change deniers], blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking"
Mainstream media has been asking of Reddit, It describes itself as “passionately dedicated to free speech”. In which case, why has it banned from its forums anyone who raises awkward or annoying questions about the science of climate change?
For my part, I beleive there is a certain amount of exaggeration and misrepresentation by parties on both sides of the debate, but censorship of one side of a debate always gives the perception of being political, rather than scientific decision.
In the article, Allen (PhD) somewhat condescendingly describes Reddit as a "window for those who are not scientists, who do not regularly talk with PhDs, and who may be unfamiliar with how science is discussed by scientists. In essence, it is a window into the Ivory Tower.", and states Reddit is "passionately dedicated to free speech". According to Allen, Reddit "generally resembles any scientific debate. That is, there are always numerous links to peer-reviewed science to support positions, people don’t deliberately mislead or misrepresent content, and there is a basic level of respect shared regardless of position."
In Allen's world, the science of Climate Change is a running battle between "hard-working scientists whose research supported and furthered our understanding of man-made climate change" against "true believers [climate change deniers], blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking"
Mainstream media has been asking of Reddit, It describes itself as “passionately dedicated to free speech”. In which case, why has it banned from its forums anyone who raises awkward or annoying questions about the science of climate change?
For my part, I beleive there is a certain amount of exaggeration and misrepresentation by parties on both sides of the debate, but censorship of one side of a debate always gives the perception of being political, rather than scientific decision.
