Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:What's Cash? (Score 1) 294 294

The problem with debit cards in the US is that there's virtually no consumer protection on them. If somebody steals your card and PIN, they can easily drain pretty much as much as they want from your bank account, up to whatever your bank's daily withdrawal limit is, and the only thing you can do is tell your bank that your number was stolen so they can cancel it and send you a new card. You'll never get that money back.

Credit cards are better because although a thief doesn't need to steal a PIN, you can dispute unauthorized charges with your bank and they will dismiss them. So, they're less secure, but also much less risky. Put everything on your credit card and pay off your debt before your next monthly statement, and doesn't cost you anything.

But that has nothing to do with the crash back in 2008, that was mostly due to the subprime mortgage crisis.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 1) 581 581

I'm not talking about what is legal, but what is moral. Merely being part of a "protected class" does not make it moral or immoral to deny services to certain classes of people.

Setting legality aside, why would it be wrong to refuse to provide an apartment or cake to a gay person but not to ban them from Reddit?

You're still misconstruing what everybody who is upset about this is saying. Reddit is not obligated, in the legal sense, to provide a forum for anybody. But if they tout themselves as being a place that values freedom of speech and open discussion -- which they previously have -- then it is hypocritical of them to exclude certain classes of people just because they find their views distasteful.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 1) 581 581

How does that relate to reddit? Are you suggesting that owners of popular web sites (and maybe TV channels or newspapers) must be burdened with publishing everyone's speech?

I don't see anybody suggesting that Reddit should be forced to allow everyone to speak. That seems to be a leap that all the anti-free speech here are making -- that because somebody is opposed to Reddit's actions, they must think Reddit should be legally compelled to allow everything.

No, people are saying that Reddit's actions are in the moral wrong. They're within their rights to do it, and we are all within ours rights to say we disapprove of it and that if you actually care about free speech (the concept and ideals behind it, not the legal enforcement of it), you should support other sites that don't filter out opinions they find distasteful.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 1) 581 581

Just so we're clear -- would you be ok with, say, if Reddit decided to ban everybody who says something opposing gay marriage because they consider that to be hate speech?

What if it's the opposite way and they decided to ban people who support gay marriage?

How about if a bakery decided to refuse service to bake a cake for a gay marriage because they didn't want to support that point of view?

What if an apartment complex decides to kick out and ban all gay tenants?

What if every apartment complex and housing community in the city decides to ban gay tenants? And every restaurant, and grocery store, and internet provider, too? Nobody's stopping those gay people from going outside the city and farming their own vegetables, generating their own electricity, building their own houses, and making their own internet, after all.

I'm trying to figure out where the line should be here. It seems like there are a lot of people here who completely support removing people who have unpopular views as long as the government isn't involved.

Comment Re:Free speech has no meaning (Score 1) 581 581

you should be defending Reddit's right to exercise whatever editorial policy they choose to put in place on their own system

I've never said otherwise. I certainly think they can have whatever policies they want. I am 100% behind that. I am also exercising my right to walk away from them and encourage other people to do the same.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 1) 581 581

No, defending freedom of speech means defending speech from interference by the government. It's not about controlling the editorial policies of publishers running private businesses.

I think you're misinterpreting what I said. I certainly don't intend to control the policies of private businesses -- but I also don't have to support businesses whose policies I don't like. One of those policies that I don't like is when a discussion-based site arbitrarily restricts discussions and bans people based on what the administrators find offensive. I will take my business elsewhere, and I will encourage other people to do the same.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 2) 581 581

However once it gains enough mass and becomes a sufficiently large enough target, then things might change. As they have with Reddit.

And if it does, then people can move somewhere else. I don't see the point in staying somewhere where you know you might be banned on a whim for stepping out of line because you're afraid of another place that could possibly become that way sometime in the future.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 1) 581 581

Defending freedom of speech means defending speech that you don't agree with. I'm sure you're familiar with the Voltaire quote, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

If somebody posts evidence of an illegal activity, by all means, prosecute them. Past that, things get more slippery. It's easy to say we don't like racist and sexist talk, but who's the authority that decides what is racism or sexism and what is valid criticism, and how do you ensure they're not biased? What do you do when you have a large group of vocal people who have legitimate complaints against specific people, but they're being dismissed due to mere accusations of sexism and racism? Shall we also start banning people who express antagonistic views toward certain countries, religions, or classes of people? Let's include anybody who criticizes the mods/admins and their decisions, too. And remember, just because you ban those people doesn't suddenly make them not exist. They'll just take their discussion somewhere that you can't see what they're discussing.

I can only speak for myself, but if I'm going to participate in a site that is all about public discussion, I would rather go somewhere that I know won't ban me on a moderator's whim. I can choose to ignore the people I don't like.

Comment Re: egalitarian? (Score 1) 727 727

So, that raises an interesting question: who defines what a label means -- the people who call themselves by that label, or the people who observe those peoples' actions?

Brianna Wu calls herself feminist, yet she has done nothing meaningful to advance equality and has preferentially hired women. Either Wu is not a feminist, or feminism is not about equality.

Comment Re:You have got to be kidding me (Score 2) 727 727

At this point, any woman would garner an adverse reaction as strong as the one we're seeing here.

Why do you think that? The question gallery for other interviewees such as Rachel Sussman and Pam Fletcher were far more civil, even when the subject of gender came up -- and there were far more technical questions that weren't gender-related at all.

Comment Re:An actual question (Score 1) 727 727

When in every single thread having anything remotely to do with GamerGaters being assholes, we see GamerGaters providing extensive amounts of evidence that they are in fact assholes, it sets the stage for "If it walks like a duck..."

In every thread you post in, you providence extensive amounts of evidence for you being an asshole, but I haven't accused you of being a harasser.

Economists state their GNP growth projections to the nearest tenth of a percentage point to prove they have a sense of humor. -- Edgar R. Fiedler