https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3djjxw/lets_talk_content_ama/
created by spez on 16/07/2015 at 20:00 UTC*
14101 upvotes, 44 top-level comments (showing 25)
We started Reddit to be—as we said back then with our tongues in our cheeks—“The front page of the Internet.” Reddit was to be a source of enough news, entertainment, and random distractions to fill an entire day of pretending to work, every day. Occasionally, someone would start spewing hate, and I would ban them. The community rarely questioned me. When they did, they accepted my reasoning: “because I don’t want that content on our site.”
As we grew, I became increasingly uncomfortable projecting my worldview on others. More practically, I didn’t have time to pass judgement on everything, so I decided to judge nothing.
So we entered a phase that can best be described as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. This worked temporarily, but once people started paying attention, few liked what they found. A handful of painful controversies usually resulted in the removal of a few communities, but with inconsistent reasoning and no real change in policy.
One thing that isn't up for debate is why Reddit exists. Reddit is a place to have open and authentic discussions. The reason we’re careful to restrict speech is because people have more open and authentic discussions when they aren't worried about the speech police knocking down their door. When our purpose comes into conflict with a policy, we make sure our purpose wins.
As Reddit has grown, we've seen additional examples of how unfettered free speech can make Reddit a less enjoyable place to visit, and can even cause people harm outside of Reddit. Earlier this year, Reddit took a stand and banned non-consensual pornography[1]. This was largely accepted by the community, and the world is a better place as a result (Google and Twitter have followed suit). Part of the reason this went over so well was because there was a very clear line of what was unacceptable.
Therefore, today we're announcing that we're considering a set of additional restrictions on what people can say on Reddit—or at least say on our public pages—in the spirit of our mission.
These types of content are prohibited [1]:
There are other types of content that are specifically classified:
2: http://www.redditblog.com/2015/05/promote-ideas-protect-people.html
We've had the NSFW classification since nearly the beginning, and it's worked well to separate the pornography from the rest of Reddit. We believe there is value in letting all views exist, even if we find some of them abhorrent, as long as they don’t pollute people’s enjoyment of the site. Separation and opt-in techniques have worked well for keeping adult content out of the common Redditor’s listings, and we think it’ll work for this other type of content as well.
No company is perfect at addressing these hard issues. We’ve spent the last few days here discussing and agree that an approach like this allows us as a company to repudiate content we don’t want to associate with the business, but gives individuals freedom to consume it if they choose. This is what we will try, and if the hateful users continue to spill out into mainstream reddit, we will try more aggressive approaches. Freedom of expression is important to us, but it’s more important to us that we at reddit be true to our mission.
[1] This is basically what we have right now. I’d appreciate your thoughts. A very clear line is important and our language should be precise.
[2] Wording we've used elsewhere is this "Systematic and/or continued actions to torment or demean someone in a way that would make a reasonable person (1) conclude that reddit is not a safe platform to express their ideas or participate in the conversation, or (2) fear for their safety or the safety of those around them."
edit: added an example to clarify our concept of "harm" edit: attempted to clarify harassment based on our existing policy
update: I'm out of here, everyone. Thank you so much for the feedback. I found this very productive. I'll check back later.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:05 UTC
2909 upvotes, 4 direct replies
When will something be done about subreddit squatters? The existing system is not working. Qgyh2 is able to retain top mod of many defaults and large subreddits just because he posts a comment every two months. This is harming reddit as a community when lower mods are veto'd and removed by someone who is only a mod for the power trip. Will something be done about this?
Comment by biggmclargehuge at 16/07/2015 at 20:28 UTC
1212 upvotes, 3 direct replies
-Things that are actually illegal, such as copyrighted material.
So 99% of the stuff on /r/pics, where people are posting copyrighted material without permission of the owners?
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:00 UTC*
4021 upvotes, 4 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by throwawaytiffany at 16/07/2015 at 20:00 UTC
581 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Comment by koproller at 16/07/2015 at 20:10 UTC
2155 upvotes, 3 direct replies
Hi, First of all. Thanks for doing this AMA. On your previous AMA you said that **"Ellen was not used as a scapegoat"**(source)[1].
Yet, it seems that /u/kn0thing that he was responsible for the mess in AMA (including Victoria being fired) (source)[2].
And /u/yishan added some light on the case here[3] and even Reddits former chief engineer Bethanye Blount (source)[4] thought that Ellen Pao was put on a glass cliff. And when she fell, because Reddit became blind with rage for a course she didn’t pick and the firing she didn’t decided, nobody of any authority came to her aid. It felt incredibly planned.
Do you still hold the opinion that she wasn’t used as scapegoat?
2: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cucye/an_old_team_at_reddit/csz2p3i
Comment by XIGRIMxREAPERIX at 16/07/2015 at 20:14 UTC
1093 upvotes, 2 direct replies
/u/spez I am confused on the illegal portion. Are we allowed to talk about pirating, but not link it in /r/tpb Can we have a discussion in /r/trees about why we should produce marijuana, but no how to produce it?
This seems like a very large grey area in terms of everything.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:02 UTC
691 upvotes, 4 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by Warlizard at 16/07/2015 at 20:00 UTC*
2848 upvotes, 8 direct replies
In Ellen Pao's op-ed[1] in the Washington Post today, she said ***"But to attract more mainstream audiences and bring in the big-budget advertisers, you must hide or remove the ugly."***
How much of the push toward removing "ugly" elements of Reddit comes from the motivation to monetize Reddit?
EDIT: "Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)" -- This is troubling because although it seems reasonable on the surface, in practice, there are people who scream harassment when *any criticism* is levied against them. How will you determine what constitutes harassment?
EDIT 2: Proposed definition of harassment -- **Harassment is defined as repetitive, unwanted, non-constructive contact from a person or persons whose effect is to annoy, disturb, threaten, humiliate, or torment a person, group or an organization.**
Comment by hansjens47 at 16/07/2015 at 20:01 UTC
406 upvotes, 1 direct replies
www.Reddit.com/rules outlines the 5 rules of reddit. They're really vague, and the rest of the Reddit wiki has tonnes of extra details on what the rules actually imply.
What's the plan for centralizing the rules so they make up a "Content Policy" ?
Comment by Georgy_K_Zhukov at 16/07/2015 at 20:00 UTC
1239 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Recently you made statements[1] that many mods have taken to imply a reduction in control that moderators have over their subreddits[2]. Much of the concern around this is the potential inability to curate subreddits to the exacting standards that some mod teams try to enforce, especially in regards to hateful and offensive comments, which apparently would still be accessible even after a mod removes them. On the other hand, statements made here and elsewhere point to admins putting more consideration into the content that can be found on reddit, so all in all, messages seem very mixed.
Could you please clarify a) exactly what you mean/envision when you say *"there should also be some mechanism to see what was removed. It doesn't have to be easy, but it shouldn't be impossible."* and b) whether that is was an off the cuff statement, or a peek at upcoming changes to the reddit architecture?
Comment by mobiusstripsearch at 16/07/2015 at 20:14 UTC
902 upvotes, 3 direct replies
What standard decides what is bullying, harassment, abuse, or violent? Surely "since you're fat you need to commit suicide" is all four and undesirable. What about an individual saying in private "I think fat people need to commit suicide" -- not actively bullying others but stating an honest opinion. What about "I think being fat is gross but you shouldn't kill yourself" or "I don't like fat people"?
I ask because all those behaviors and more were wrapped in the fatpeoplehate drama. Surely there were unacceptable behaviors. But as a consequence a forum for acceptable behavior on the issue is gone. Couldn't that happen to other forums -- couldn't someone take offense to anti-gay marriage advocates and throw the baby out with the bath water? Who decides what is and isn't bullying? Is there an appeal process? Will there be public records?
In short, what is the reasonable standard that prevents anti-bullying to become bullying itself?
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:00 UTC
1094 upvotes, 2 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by SirYodah at 16/07/2015 at 20:00 UTC*
1647 upvotes, 3 direct replies
Can you please speak on why real members are still being shadowbanned, even after you claimed that they never should be?
Note: I'm not involved in any of the communities represented in the link, I found it on /r/all yesterday and want to know the reason why people are still being shadowbanned.
EDIT: Thanks to the spez and the other admins that replied. Folks, please stop downvoting them if you don't like their answer. I asked why people are still being shadowbanned, and the answer is because they don't have an alternative yet, but they're working on it. It may not be the answer some of you hoped for, but it's enough for me.
Spez's reply:
I stand by my statement like I'd like to use it as seldom as possible, and we are building better tools as we speak.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:03 UTC
579 upvotes, 1 direct replies
You really need to clarify
Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)
because that's rather vague and is very much open to interpretation (one person's definition of harassment is not necessarily another's - is it harassment just because one person says so?). To be honest, I see nothing here that's really new to the existing content policy outside of "the common decency opt in", which I'm probably ok with - that will depend on how it's implemented and what is classified as abhorrent.
Comment by Darr_Syn at 16/07/2015 at 20:07 UTC
1724 upvotes, 3 direct replies
Thanks for doing this AMA.
I'm a moderator of more than a few NSFW subreddits, including /r/BDSMcommunity and /r/BDSM, and as I stated in the teaser announcement earlier this week: this decision, and the specific wording, is worrying.
I want to specifically address this:
Anything that incites harm or violence against an individual or group of people
As well as your earlier comment about things being seen as "offensive" and "obscene".
There are sections of the world, and even the United States, where consensual BDSM and kink are illegal.
You can see where this is the type of announcement that raises more than a few eyebrows in our little corner of the world.
At what point do the minority opinion and positions be accepted as obscene, offensive, and unwanted?
BDSM between two consenting adults has been seen and labeled as both offensive and obscene for decades now.
Comment by justcool393 at 16/07/2015 at 20:01 UTC*
4605 upvotes, 6 direct replies
Hi everyone answering these questions. I have a "few" questions that I, like probably most of reddit would like answers to. Like a recent AMA I asked questions in, the bold will be the meat of the question, and the non-bolded will be context. ***If you don't know an answer to a question, say so, and do so directly!*** Honesty is very much appreciated. With that said, here goes.
1. **What is the policy regarding content that has distasteful speech, but not harassing?** Some subreddits have been known to harbor ideologies such as Nazism or racist ones. Are users, and by extension subreddits, allowed to behave in this way, or will this be banned or censored?
2. **What is the policy regarding, well, these subreddits[1]?** These subreddits are infamous on reddit as a whole. These usually come up during AskReddit threads of "where would you not go" or whenever distasteful subreddits are mentioned. *(Edit: WatchPeopleDie shouldn't be included and is definitely not as bad as the others. See here.[2])*
1: https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/-/cs28af2
2: http://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3djjxw/z/ct5sk10
3. **What actually is the harassment policy?** Yes, I know the definition that's practically copypasta from the announcement, but could we have examples? You don't have to define a hard rule, in fact, it'd probably be best if there was a little subjectivity to avoid lawyering, but it'd be helpful to have an example.
4. **What are your thoughts on some people's interpretation of the rules as becoming a safe-space[3]?** A vocal group of redditors interpreted the new harassment rules as this, and as such are not happy about it. I personally didn't read the rules that way, but I can see how it may be interpreted that way.
3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-space
5. **Do you have any plans to update the rules page?** It, at the moment, has 6 rules, and the only one that seems to even address the harassment policy is rule 5, which is at best reaching in regards to it.
6. **What is the best way to report harassment?** For example, should we use /r/reddit.com's modmail or the contact@reddit.com email? How long should we wait before bumping a modmail, for example?
7. **Who is allowed to report harassment?** Say I'm a moderator, and decide to check a user's history and see they've followed around another user to 20 different subreddits posting the same thing or whatnot. Should I report it to the admins?
1. **In regards to subreddits for mocking another group, what is the policy on them?** Subreddits that highlight other places being stupid or whatever, such as /r/ShitRedditSays, /r/SRSsucks, the "Badpire", /r/Buttcoin or pretty much any sub dedicated to mocking people frequently brigade each other and other places on reddit. SRS has gone out of it's way to harass in the past, and while bans may not be applied retroactively, some have recently said they've gotten death threats after being linked to from there.
2. **What are the current plans to address brigading?** Will reddit ever support NP (and maybe implement it) or implement another way to curb brigading? This would solve very many problems in regards to meta subreddits.
3. **Is this a good definition of brigading[4], and if not, what is it?** Many mods and users can't give a good explanation of it at the moment of what constitutes it. This forces them to resort to in SubredditDrama's case, banning voting or commenting altogether in linked threads, or in ShitRedditSays' case, not do anything at all.
1. **What is spam?** Like yes, we know what obvious spam is, but there have been a number of instances in the past where good content creators have been banned for submitting their content.
2. **Regarding the "Neither Alexis or I created reddit to be a bastion of free speech" comment[5], how do you feel about this[6], this[7], this[8] or this[9]?** I do get that opinions change and that I could shit turds that could search reddit better than it does right now, but it's not hard to see that you said on multiple occasions, especially during the /r/creepshots debacle, even with the literal words "bastion of free speech".
5: http://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/
7: http://i.imgur.com/lq1QtBd.png
8: http://i.imgur.com/I4Ba3Vq.png
9: http://i.imgur.com/UsmaD9I.png
3. **How do you plan to implement the new policy?** If the policy is substantially more restrictive, such as combating racism or whatnot, I think you'll have a problem in the long run, because there is just way too much content on reddit, and it will inevitably be applied very inconsistently. Many subreddits have popped back up under different names after being banned.
4. **Did you already set the policy before you started the AMA, and if so, what was the point of it?** It seems like from the announcement, you had already made up your mind about the policy regarding content on reddit, and this has made some people understandably upset.
5. **Do you have anything else to say regarding the recent events?** I know this has been stressful, but reddit is a cool place and a lot of people use it to share neat (sometimes untrue, but whatever) experiences and whatnot. I don't think the vast majority of people want reddit to implode on itself, but some of the recent decisions and remarks made by the admin team (and former team to be quite honest) are quite concerning.
Comment by The_Antigamer at 16/07/2015 at 20:13 UTC
1365 upvotes, 2 direct replies
you know it when you see it.
That is exactly the kind of ambiguity that will cause further controversy.
Comment by almightybob1 at 16/07/2015 at 20:05 UTC*
3571 upvotes, 5 direct replies
Hello Steve.
You said the other day[1] that "Neither Alexis nor I created reddit to be a bastion of free speech". As you probably are aware by now, reddit remembers differently. Here are just a few of my favourite quotes, articles and comments which demonstrate that reddit has in fact long trumpeted itself as just that - a bastion of free speech.
A reddit ad, uploaded March 2007[2]:
2: https://sp.reddit.com/freespeech.jpg
Save freedom of speech - use reddit.com.
You, Steve Huffman, on why reddit hasn't degenerated into Digg, 2008[3]:
I suspect that it's because we respect our users (at least the ones who return the favor), are honest, and don't censor content.
You, Steve Huffman, 2009[4]:
4: https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/8k6wx/reddits_decline_in_democracy/c09k4k3
We've been accused of censoring since day one, and we have a long track record of not doing so.
Then-General Manager Erik Martin, 2012[5]:
5: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/iuz8a/iama_reddit_general_manager_ama/c26uuxb?context=3
We're a free speech site with very few exceptions (mostly personal info) and having to stomach occasional troll reddit like picsofdeadkids or morally quesitonable reddits like jailbait are part of the price of free speech on a site like this.
reddit blogpost, 2012[6] (this one is my favourite):
6: https://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/pmj7f/a_necessary_change_in_policy/
At reddit we care deeply about not imposing ours or anyone elses’ opinions on how people use the reddit platform. We are adamant about not limiting the ability to use the reddit platform even when we do not ourselves agree with or condone a specific use.
[...]
We understand that this might make some of you worried about the slippery slope from banning one specific type of content to banning other types of content. We're concerned about that too, and do not make this policy change lightly or without careful deliberation. We will tirelessly defend the right to freely share information on reddit in any way we can, even if it is offensive or discusses something that may be illegal.
Then-CEO Yishan Wong, October 2012[7]:
We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits. We will not ban legal content even if we find it odious or if we personally condemn it.
reddit's core values, May 2015[8]:
8: http://www.redditblog.com/2015/05/were-sharing-our-companys-core-values.html
* Allow freedom of expression.
* Be stewards, not dictators. The community owns itself.
And of course (do I even need to add it?) Alexis Ohanian *literally* calling reddit a bastion of free speech, February 2012[9]. Now with bonus Google+ post saying how proud he is of that quote[10]!
There are many more examples, from yourself and other key figures at reddit (including Alexis), confirming that reddit has promoted itself as a centre of free speech, and that this belief was and is widespread amongst the corporate culture of reddit. If you want to read more, check out the new subreddit /r/BoFS (Bastion of Free Speech), which gathered all these examples and more in less than two days.
So now that you've had time to plan your response to these inevitable accusations of hypocrisy, my question is this: who do you think you are fooling Steve?
Comment by SUSAN_IS_A_BITCH at 16/07/2015 at 20:02 UTC*
813 upvotes, 4 direct replies
Over the last year there have been a number of moments where top employees have dropped the ball when it came to talking with users about Reddit's direction:
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/2foivo/every_man_is_responsible_for_his_own_soul/
2: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/2fpdax/time_to_talk/
4: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cbo4m/we_apologize/
5: https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/3cbnuu/we_apologize/csu1i1y
8: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cbo4m/we_apologize/csu21xe
I'm sure other users have other examples, but these are the ones that have stuck with me. I intentionally left out the announcement of the /r/fatpeoplehate ban[9] because I thought it was clear why those subreddits were being banned, though admittedly many users were confused about the new policy and it quickly became another mess.
9: http://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/removing_harassing_subreddits/
I think this AMA is a good first step toward better communication with the user base, but only if your responses are as direct and clear as they once were.
I wish I didn't have to fear the Announcements' comments section like Jabba the Hutt's janitor fears the bathroom.
Comment by SaidTheCanadian at 16/07/2015 at 20:30 UTC
286 upvotes, 3 direct replies
***i.e. things that are actually illegal, such as copyrighted material***
This is a poorly-worded idea. "Copyrighted material" is not illegal, nor should linking to "copyrighted material" be considered illegal. *E.g.* if I were to link to a New York Times article discussing these proposed changes[1], I am linking to *copyrighted material*. Often it's impossible to know the copyright status of something, hence the approach on this should be limited to a takedown-based approach (i.e. if someone receives a **legitimate** notice, then the offending content should be suspended or removed... but should the subreddit or user be banned??), however it should be up to whichever site is *hosting* the material. What perhaps would be the most clear-cut example of doing something illegal to violate another person's copyright is posting the *full text* of a copyright book as a series of comments -- that would be inappropriate.
1: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/technology/reddit-steve-huffman.html
Comment by verdatum at 16/07/2015 at 20:02 UTC
1056 upvotes, 3 direct replies
ITT: People who have been waiting to hit ctrl+v "save" for at least a day now.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:13 UTC*
294 upvotes, 2 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:00 UTC*
2164 upvotes, 2 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by caitlinreid at 16/07/2015 at 21:05 UTC
192 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Anything illegal (i.e. things that are actually illegal, such as copyrighted material.
This is a huge mistake.
90% of content uploaded to imgur to be "rehosted" is infringing on copyrights. Isn't someone at reddit an investor in imgur btw?
Copyright infringement is handled via DMCA. If someone has a complaint the DMCA laws outline specific steps to take to remedy that and the person accused has a chance to respond in a clearly defined way.
In addition, removing copyright infringement at all is you, reddit, saying that you are going to moderate such content. Once you take this stance guess what? You are now actually liable for **all** infringing material on the entire site. That means you can (and will) get sued for real money. It will destroy reddit.
The DMCA is intended to protect service providers (reddit) because they **do not police for copyrighted content**. By moderating such content without legal notice (DMCA) you lose those protections.
Have fun with that I guess.
Since AMA I guess my question is how a company running a site like reddit can be so damn clueless on things that were hashed out ages ago?
Comment by The_Year_of_Glad at 16/07/2015 at 20:02 UTC
75 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Anything illegal (i.e. things that are actually illegal, such as copyrighted material.
Illegal in which jurisdiction, specifically?
