Comment by Warlizard on 16/07/2015 at 20:00 UTC*

2854 upvotes, 54 direct replies (showing 25)

View submission: Let's talk content. AMA.

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."***

1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-cannot-let-the-internet-trolls-win/2015/07/16/91b1a2d2-2b17-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

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.**

EDIT 3: /u/spez response -- https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3djjxw/lets_talk_content_ama/ct5s58n

Replies

Comment by BloodyFreeze at 16/07/2015 at 20:17 UTC*

74 upvotes, 1 direct replies

That was my concern as well. This coupled with making banning easier and including an appeal process allows for a, ban now, discuss the gray area later, mentality.

Edit:I'm for allowing people to appeal and such, but can we please have rules for reddit admins, mods and what they can and cannot do as well? I'm fine with following rules as long as there are also rules in place that protect the users from mods and/or admins that might ban or censor a gray area topic in the interest of stockholders, board members, advertisers, investors, etc.

Comment by jack_skellington at 16/07/2015 at 21:00 UTC

7 upvotes, 1 direct replies

to attract more mainstream audiences

I have a question not for /u/spez, but for readership here. Most of us were attracted to Reddit for the little niche discussion forums where we could "be among our own" and really geek out about our specific interests. So while I know that we're all alarmed to see text about hiding or removing "the ugly," isn't the text about going mainstream troubling as well? I mean, do we as readers really want to be on a vanilla, generic discussion forum that was cleaned up for the masses? Do we really want to have safe, PC discussions about mainstream topics?

I personally want to see porn of older women on a little niche subreddit I run for older people. I want to geek out about role playing games on little RPG subreddits. And that porn subreddit is going to have crude comments, and that RPG subreddit is going to have hotly contested debates about obscure rules. Those debates won't even necessarily be *nice* because sometimes it's pretty annoying to have to correct some idiot who didn't read the rules but wants to spout off about his guesses as if they were facts. I mean, these little weird discussions about niche topics are *why I'm here.* And they're not always PC, and not always relevant to the mainstream audience.

The more mainstream Reddit gets, the more these niches get overrun. For example, /r/fitness was just last night having a debate/problem with some misinformation about a guy who *supposedly* got ripped in 2 months from just doing pushups, and a bunch of people upvoted it as if it were legit. Suddenly, the "locals" in that subreddit realized that because the subreddit had been added to the default set of subreddits, a bunch of uneducated masses were overrunning the subreddit with misguided ideas/posts/votes.

This direction isn't a good one. I think talking about concerns with "going mainstream" are just as important as talking about "removing the ugly."

Comment by EverWatcher at 16/07/2015 at 20:15 UTC

1574 upvotes, 3 direct replies

Your username looks familiar.

Aren't you the guy who calls out the bullshit, demands accountability, and posts awesome comments?

Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:19 UTC

194 upvotes, 7 direct replies

[deleted]

Comment by asianedy at 16/07/2015 at 20:10 UTC

518 upvotes, 5 direct replies

How will you determine what constitutes harassment?

Everyone knows why they left that vague.

Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:16 UTC

65 upvotes, 1 direct replies

This is the point that I really have a problem with. It's vague to the point that it can be used to ban or remove almost any opinion.

Comment by MyLegsHurt at 16/07/2015 at 20:11 UTC

235 upvotes, 3 direct replies

Sure hope it's not whichever group has the largest megaphone with which to yell through. Though I suspect it will be.

Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:15 UTC

58 upvotes, 3 direct replies

[removed]

Comment by Leophat at 16/07/2015 at 20:27 UTC

10 upvotes, 1 direct replies

Additionally how do you ensure that admins don't act emotionally when making decision whether something is 'harassment' or not. I'm asking since 2 admins became known for 'acting' then thinking: Alexis and krispykrackers. What if I find krackers' username offensive? How do you make a decision in that case?

Comment by NDIrish27 at 16/07/2015 at 20:35 UTC

5 upvotes, 1 direct replies

Spez explicitly says they need to be clear about that, and then proceeds to be wildly vague whenever anybody asks him to explain it throughout this AMA. I was hoping my assumptions about what this AMA would be like were wrong. Unfortunately we're getting politician bullshit answers to the questions he deigns to respond to.

Comment by RndmHero at 16/07/2015 at 21:30 UTC*

4 upvotes, 0 direct replies

I think /u/raldi best summed up what these policies are in place for here[1]:

1: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/content_policy_update_ama_thursday_july_16th_1pm/ct3ful2

Are you therefore saying you'd like to see a reddit that allowed for all of the following? 



If so, then that's a valid position to take. But if, in actuality, you'd forbid some of the above, then please take the time to express the nuances in your position, instead of oversimplifying it to "allow anything that isn't explicitly illegal".

I am a strong proponent of free speech. I defend the right for people to say whatever they want and I think it's important to stress that supporting this means you must definitely also support people saying things you disagree with and don't want to hear. Where the line must be drawn, however, is when personal information is spread that could affect peoples real lives, threats are made that make people feel uncomfortable or unsafe, or continued harassment over time takes place. There also has to be some reasonable common sense with the moderation of this or else everyone will just cry wolf and say everything makes them feel unsafe.

I admire that the admins are making and sticking by unpopular decisions that they feel are right. Great leaders sometimes have to do that. I am pretty shocked by the behavior and reactions of the reddit community as of late. I think everyone needs to calm down about censorship and approach this like adults and have open, calm discussions about how these policies must be phrased and all the possible outcomes that should be considered. I am glad to see better communication, such as this very post/thread because I think that's an important first step.

Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:43 UTC

3 upvotes, 1 direct replies

Like it or not, businesses don't run on feels, they run on money. I'm pretty sure no one involved in reddit did so with the hopes that they could spend thousands of dollars on servers to give anonymous users a place to humiliate overweight people and demonize women. If you want to call that "monetizing reddit" that's fine, but let's be honest at least.

Comment by wildmetacirclejerk at 17/07/2015 at 02:00 UTC

2 upvotes, 1 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."***

1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-cannot-let-the-internet-trolls-win/2015/07/16/91b1a2d2-2b17-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

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.**

Lad

Comment by [deleted] at 17/07/2015 at 06:38 UTC

2 upvotes, 1 direct replies

[deleted]

Comment by FluentInTypo at 16/07/2015 at 23:33 UTC

2 upvotes, 1 direct replies

Which puts me in mind that IAMAs and firing of Victoria. What Ellen is saying and what Spez is about to do, is cave to Hollywood. Reddit must make Reddit a safe space for Advertisers to advertise. I wonder how many Hollywood Big Wigs told reddit..."remove all possible threats to our advertising model, and this includes the "inappropriate Iama questions" of our celebrities, or the possible subtle, subliminal associations people could make with our brand alongside these terrible subreddits. Clean it up! This is Hollywoods advertising space and it must be made safe - no controversial questions, no more prirating and torrents, no more fringe content. Sanitize it."

Comment by gorillakitty at 16/07/2015 at 21:58 UTC

2 upvotes, 1 direct replies

I don't care if the decision was made to help monetize the site. I honestly don't know how reddit is still in business after running in the red for so long, I support any reasonable effort to monetize it. Plus I'm sick of the hatefulness here.

I agree there are a lot of gray areas and it's impossible to define precisely what's offensive. Other sites have tackled it, reddit should at least try.

Btw, your upvoted podcast was one of my favorites, you've inspired me to stop mostly lurking and contribute more. Thanks.

Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:26 UTC*

4 upvotes, 2 direct replies

[deleted]

Comment by aaarrrggh at 16/07/2015 at 20:33 UTC

2 upvotes, 1 direct replies

Ellen Pao's op-ed

The answer to this is obvious and we all know it - they want that "mainstream audience" and they want the big money, which, they believe, means they need to start censoring much of the content on here. It's a real shame as reddit has for so long been a place where intelligent people go for intelligent discussions, but give them time and it'll be full of people who play candy crush and just want to share pictures of cats... oh wait

Comment by TheHaleStorm at 16/07/2015 at 21:32 UTC

2 upvotes, 0 direct replies

Not only remove the ugly, but exploit the naked.

I would bet that the porn subs have unregistered traffic approaching that of the defaults due to privacy concerns. Now no one can see them without registering. More registered users means more money.

Personally I am waiting for reddit to be called out on their user numbers. Every one pitching with how many alts they have.

4 total here.

Comment by makemisteaks at 16/07/2015 at 20:57 UTC

2 upvotes, 1 direct replies

My guess? All of it. They can justify this whoever they want but this is the simple truth. It's not an ideology or a deep belief of keeping everybody safe, they want to be the next Twitter. There's nothing wrong with that, just be open about it, admit it, say you want to get paid. Don't go around carrying the mantle of justice because of something you're doing for profits.

Comment by BearZeBubus at 16/07/2015 at 21:41 UTC

2 upvotes, 0 direct replies

There was a post just yesterday of that man who was harassing that woman on Twitter but she kept looking for his posts right? He was blocked but she still felt harassed.

This is just an example, and I did not fully look into the story to know if what I said was correct but this seems like it is an example of the abuse of "harassment".

Comment by CuilRunnings at 16/07/2015 at 20:48 UTC

2 upvotes, 1 direct replies

"Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)"

Sounds like moderators who routinely remove certain types of non-harassing comments would run afoul of this. I wonder what /u/spez's plan is to address moderators who harass the community in this way?

Comment by raldi at 16/07/2015 at 21:03 UTC

2 upvotes, 1 direct replies

How will you determine what constitutes harassment?

Would this work?

"Harassment is when you're following someone around after they've made it clear they don't want any involvement with you and have done everything they can to break off contact"

If not, what's wrong with it?

Even better, how would you improve it?

Comment by wildlywell at 16/07/2015 at 21:40 UTC

2 upvotes, 0 direct replies

This is a major concern. "Harassment" and "bullying" and other merely offensive and mean behaviours are too amorphous to regulate fairly.

Edit: Tumblrinaction, for example, pushes back against an idea, but in kind of a mocking way. Similarly, Atheism can be awful and abusive towards people of faith.

Comment by Jerimiah at 16/07/2015 at 21:00 UTC

2 upvotes, 1 direct replies

That's the one thing that bothered me in this announcement. Buried right in the middle. It's also pretty vague. Harassment and bullying have similar but still different definitions. This feels like a rule to just point at and say, 'That's why you were banned.'