880 upvotes, 26 direct replies (showing 25)
View submission: Let's talk content. AMA.
Very good question, and that's one of the things we need to be clear about. I think we have an intuitive sense of what this means (e.g. death threats, inciting rape), but before we release an official update to our policy we will spell this out as precisely as possible.
Update: I added an example to my post. It's ok to say, "I don't like this group of people." It's not ok to say, "I'm going to kill this group of people."
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:16 UTC
554 upvotes, 8 direct replies
Yea, but how are you going to determine that the subreddit itself is at fault? There's going to be a few individuals in all subreddits that cause harm, how do you determine that the sub itself is at fault enough to be banned?
Comment by Adwinistrator at 16/07/2015 at 20:16 UTC
540 upvotes, 17 direct replies
Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)
How will this be interpreted in the context of spirited debates between large factions of people (usually along ideological lines)?
The following example can usually be found on both sides of these conflicts, so don't presume I'm speaking about a particular side of a particular debate:
There have been many cases of people accusing others of harassment or bullying, when in reality a group of people is shining a light on someone's bad arguments, or bad actions. Those that now see this, voice their opinions (in larger numbers than the bad actor is used to), and they say they are being harassed, bullied, or being intimidated into silence.
How would the new rules consider this type of situation, in the context of bullying, or harassment?
Comment by HungryMoblin at 16/07/2015 at 20:17 UTC
212 upvotes, 4 direct replies
That's a good idea, because I think what the community is seeking right now is straight guidelines that they can follow. /r/cringe for example, the sub actively takes a stance against off-site harassment (yes, including death threats), but it happens every time someone forgets to blur a username. This isn't the fault of the moderators at all, who are actively preventing harm, but the users. How do you intend on handling a situation like that?
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:21 UTC
294 upvotes, 8 direct replies
How do plan on determining who is an authentic member of a subreddit?
If I make a few posts to /r/ShitRedditSays and then go harass members of /r/kotakuinaction or /r/theredpill would that then be enough to get /r/shitredditsays banned?
How do you hope to combat strategies such as this?
Comment by cha0s at 16/07/2015 at 20:17 UTC
103 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Will you ensure us that you will clarify this **before** you ban anymore subs, and that the subs affected by the bans will be notified in advance and given an opportunity to rectify any transgressions they may be making?
Comment by AnImbroglio at 16/07/2015 at 20:41 UTC
6 upvotes, 0 direct replies
If someone is behaving like an idiot, and I call them an idiot, am I to be banned? Is that "hate speech", despite how true it may be? Yes, that person will likely not like that I said it, but if you censor it, then you are engaged in censoring truth. I know it's a slippery slope fallacy, but it is how mass censorship gets started. Other users have pointed out that this is your house, and you can make the rules, but let's not call it anything other than what it is.
And to ensure that you will not respond to this, everyone is fully aware that you are doing this in order to make Reddit more appealing commercially. Look back over the recent changes. If I were to make this site more lucrative, I would do EXACTLY what you have done. The next steps would be to ban those subs, to give the mods SOME new tools (likely, not nearly enough) and then to do a mass press release on a platform that isn't reddit touting your accomplishments to the world. So why, then, are the admins of reddit still denying this to be the case?
Sound about right?
Comment by Darr_Syn at 16/07/2015 at 20:17 UTC
85 upvotes, 3 direct replies
This question is of paramount importance to the NSFW subreddits under the family of BDSM.
Your previous wording is such that you take a pretty strong stance *against* subreddits like /r/BDSMcommunity and the like.
So, this definition is rather timely in my opinion.
Comment by Hurt_Fee_Fees at 16/07/2015 at 20:23 UTC
173 upvotes, 3 direct replies
Yet /r/badfattynodonut was banned when they were created to provide similar content to /r/fatpeoplehate, without the issues that got /r/fatpeoplehate banned.
Should /r/badfattynodonut be reinstated and be given a chance to operate as they'd planned?
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:19 UTC
109 upvotes, 2 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:21 UTC
22 upvotes, 0 direct replies
How do plan on determining who is an authentic member of a subreddit?
If I make a few posts to /r/ShitRedditSays and then go harass members of /r/kotakuinaction or /r/theredpill would that then be enough to get /r/shitredditsays banned?
How do you hope to combat strategies such as this?
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:42 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Some people (ex: Tumblr) take "causing harm to others" to ban pro-ed or eating disorder posts that aren't in recovery. Meaning anyone talking about their mental health food issues that has not successfully gone through treatment. This is a problem because I would argue MOST people active in their disorder fall into the "banned" category. Where can they go to express themselves, talk with people who are going through the same thing, etc. I'm just bringing this up in case ED groups are among the ones you wish to ban.
Comment by shakypears at 16/07/2015 at 20:18 UTC
7 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Would you count telling other users to commit suicide to be part of those guidelines?
Comment by Hepu at 16/07/2015 at 20:16 UTC
14 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I'm pretty sure that stuff is already against the rules.
Unless you plan on broadening what you mean by "inciting rape" to include TRP and maybe some fetish subs, you just said nothing.
Comment by frymaster at 16/07/2015 at 20:17 UTC
4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
what will help is, when possible, explaining what **specific** actions caused a violation of the harassment rule
just talking generalities means people draw their own conclusion
Comment by jstrydor at 16/07/2015 at 20:16 UTC
14 upvotes, 1 direct replies
we will spell this out as precisely as possible.
W
well, that's a start
Comment by darksabrelord at 16/07/2015 at 20:18 UTC
10 upvotes, 0 direct replies
What does this mean for the subreddits (hateful or not) actively brigading against other subreddits?
Is this behavior going to be blanket disallowed (pretty please can it be)?
Comment by jenknick at 16/07/2015 at 20:54 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
How does that ideal play in to subs like /r/fatpeoplehate? I don't agree with the subreddit, but I have heard since the ban that they were very good about banning people who went on hate crusades against individuals. If the sub were like that or a similar sub popped up with the same idea but was better about that, would the sub be removed? Or since they kept to themselves and didn't hurt anyone, would they remain? What about r/trashy? Since they usually post facebook screenshots, would that be considered a harmful behaviour? Or would it be allowed since it's not threats, just mocking? Is reddit going to become a "hugbox"?
Comment by CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH at 16/07/2015 at 20:39 UTC
5 upvotes, 1 direct replies
If you are banning things that incite rape then I assume you are at the least talking about /r/ThePhilosophyOfRape (which has gone private, probably just trying to hide from you).
But I would urge you to do your research on /r/TheRedPill as well.
This[1] /r/TheBluePill post has some of the most comprehensive evidence.
I'll also add some highlights if you don't want to go through all of that.
Endorsed contributor telling user to cum on a sleeping womans face
User bragging about anally raping his wife
Head mod saying all women want to be raped
Head mod saying that spousal rape cannot happen because the woman "consented" at the altar
User saying to always rape women
More people saying that spousal rape cannot occur
Apparently no does not mean no
And there is much much more evidence of this inciting of rape.
Comment by DuhTrutho at 16/07/2015 at 20:17 UTC
4 upvotes, 1 direct replies
we will spell this out as precisely as possible.
Uh... where?
Comment by juniorlax16 at 17/07/2015 at 01:29 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Update: I added an example to my post. It's ok to say, "I don't like this group of people." It's not ok to say, "I'm going to kill this group of people."
Based on this comment[1] by /u/ChrisTaliaferro then /r/coontown should be on the chopping block.
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3djjxw/lets_talk_content_ama/ct5t4p1
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:30 UTC
3 upvotes, 2 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by Brenbren25 at 16/07/2015 at 20:17 UTC
9 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Thank you spez, I think we all agree (heck /r/coontown has a rule that bans for calls to violence) inciting violence is unacceptable. But the free exchange of thought can moderate us in fact.
Comment by goonsack at 16/07/2015 at 21:18 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
So what about /r/Military or /r/MilitaryPorn? These subs glorify organized violence against groups of people. Is that grounds for closure? Or are you giving a pass on forms of violence that society is 'okay' with.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 22:43 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
And what about the obvious "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest" type comments? A sub whose whole purpose is dancing on a thin line of "all X people should die, are subhuman, should be murdered" without actively saying "we are going to kill" is just a wink and a nod. It's more than just "we hate X", it's the advocacy and celebration of violence up to and including murder of groups of people. And it's not quarantined, it actively spreads to other subs when its members harass individuals and post links to other subs to harass them.
But hey, /u/spez, you picked a side. Supporting and turning a blind eye to it. You haven't banned them before either for their purpose and words, or for their actions. You gave them a lollipop and sent them to their room but didn't even take away their XBox there. And you're not even going to yell when they come out of their room to spit and yell at people.
Eh, fuck it, I'm done. Gonna go delete my account. All yours here, kids. If I were staying I'd consider telling every company I see advertising that I wouldn't by from them for advertising on Reddit. But I am just as sure the ongoing tech news about this whole thing will shit the bed nicely for reddit without my help.Adios!
Comment by RockStoleMySock at 16/07/2015 at 22:09 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
So under that definition, shouldn't /r/fatpeoplehate's position at Reddit be reinstated?
I ask as I was a frequent commenter there. The content was great and came in at a steady pace. Some good discussions were had there. In addition, that subreddit, in no way, ever incited violence.
As for me, I was banned from several subreddits (some of which I very much enjoyed) simply because I was an active member of /r/fatpeoplehate. To be clear, I never permitted my "hatred" of fat people to extend beyond the confines of /r/fatpeoplehate.
I'm not sure if this is an issue you can solve if it's purely between myself and those moderating the subreddits from which I was banned, but let me put it this way -- is there a way to make sure people in my position don't get stonewalled from content purely because of association? In my view, that would not be a ban-able offense, unless I'm missing something obvious here.
