223 upvotes, 32 direct replies (showing 25)
View submission: Let's talk content. AMA.
Spirited debates are in important part of what makes Reddit special. Our goal is to spell out clear rules that everyone can understand. Any banning of content will be carefully considered against our public rules.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:40 UTC
745 upvotes, 28 direct replies
I have been a redditor for a very long time, and I've been part of a range of kinds of communities that vary fairly significantly.
I am also a female who was raped, and this is something I have been opened about talking fairly frequently on reddit.
I disagree with the ban of the aforementioned sub, because I feel that it sets a precedent depending on what the society deems appropriate to think about, and what it does not.
Please note, that I can not and do not pretend to speak for any woman who was raped besides myself.
What I am concerned with is this distinct drawing of a line between the people who own the site, and the people who create the content on the site. Reddit appealed to me because it was the closest thing to a speaking democracy I could find in my entire existence, utilizing technology in a way that is almost impossible to recreate across large populations of people otherwise.
This sequence of events marks this as a departure from that construct. From today onwards, I know that I am not seeing clusters of people with every aspect of their humanity shown, as ugly as it may be sometimes. I feel that it is not the subreddit that causes subs like /r/rapingwomen to exist, but this stems from a larger cultural problem. Hiding it or sweeping it under a rug from the masses is not what solves the problem; I have already lived under those rules and I have seen them to be ineffective at best and traumatizing / mentally warping at worst.
People's minds should not be ruled over by the minds of other people, and that is what I feel this has become. Internet content is thought content, idea content. It is not the act of violence - these are two very separate things. You can construct a society that appears to value and cherish women's rights in the highest regard, and yet the truth can be the furthest thing from it.
I really would hope that you would reconsider your position. To take away the right of being able to know with certainty that one can speak freely without fear, I don't have many words to offer that fully express my sadness at that.
The problem is not the banning of specifics. The problem is how it affects how people reason afterwards about their expectations of the site and their interactions with others. It sets up new social constructs and new social rules, and will alter things significantly, even fractions of things you would not expect. It is like a butterfly effect across the mind, to believe you can speak freely, and to have that taken away.
Comment by alexanderwales at 16/07/2015 at 20:25 UTC
471 upvotes, 13 direct replies
But you haven't clearly spelled out the rules. What does this:
Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)
Even mean? It seems totally subjective.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:24 UTC
213 upvotes, 10 direct replies
Would it be possible for you to have a sub where you post reasons for all bans?
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:25 UTC
14 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Much easier said than done, I think the problem is that your rules are going to end up very subjective. Thus it will be more of content that admins don't want than ones that actually don't follow certain guidelines.
Comment by DriftingSkies at 16/07/2015 at 20:28 UTC
4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
How does Reddit, Inc. plan to reconcile the desire for people to be able to conduct spirited debates, including the debating where one side will voice unpopular or controversial opinions, with the desire to make sure that people can participate in discussions both...
I don't necessarily want to air all my controversial positions to the world, and sometimes, I just want to sit back and engage in random conversation with friends and fellow redditors?
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:41 UTC
13 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:37 UTC
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
At what point does a debate become harassment? Does someone saying "don't debate me on this you shitlord" automatically turn any reply into unwanted contact and therefore harassment? Can people just go around adding "I don't want a response from you because your ideology is shit" to their comments and get anyone who replies banned for unwanted contact?
What is bullying? Does bullying consist of "your ideology is shit," your specific interpretation of this ideology is shit?" Does it consist of banning users of certain subreddits from unrelated subreddits, simply for posting an unpopular opinion?
If a user has overlapping usernames (say, steam, GoG, deviantart, tumblr, and reddit, crosslinked on profile pages), would contacting them on those sites or talking about their posts on said sites be abuse, harassment, or bullying?
Comment by Dlgredael at 16/07/2015 at 20:33 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think this issue is still unexplained. Where do you draw the line for bullying/harassing a group of people? How about something like this:
I say "I hate racists, they're prejudiced and small-minded." Is that considered "bullying or harassing a group of people"? I understand the part about inciting harm and violence, but this clause is so vague that it is bound to cause trouble.
Comment by nemoid at 16/07/2015 at 20:24 UTC
20 upvotes, 2 direct replies
But... you haven't clearly spelled anything out yet. You realize that, right?
Comment by ShaneDLJ at 16/07/2015 at 20:25 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Can we expect a transparent reasoning or will this be done arbitrarily without discussion potentially under the guise of being "carefully considered"?
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:46 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Can a debate happen if people are downvoted out of disagreement?
Can a debate happen if people are using strawmen and classification to discredit one side of an argument, no matter what the person says?
Right now, those two things are being used all the time to stifle debate, not encourage it.
Comment by canyouhearme at 16/07/2015 at 23:00 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think you have to set a very high bar for 'harassment' - much higher than most SJW types would like. General principles need to be:
Finally, the users of reddit need a way of talking back, with force, against the behaviours of either individual mods, or admin, and having that acted upon. We shouldn't get to the situation where users have to 'go nuclear' against idiocy such as Pao. It may not be a democracy, but the only value of the site comes from it's users and that MUST be heard in future, even above the desires of certain money men.
Allowing the community, in the end, to decide what's right or wrong wouldn't be a bad move.
Comment by easychairmethod at 16/07/2015 at 20:35 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
You say spirited debate, I say harassment. Where's the line drawn? Especially in today's age where simple disagreement is viewed as harassment (see twitter blockbot), you must define harassment or strike it completely from bannable offenses.
Comment by Angadar at 16/07/2015 at 20:25 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Will individual users be banned for breaking these rules, or just subreddits?
Comment by The_Year_of_Glad at 16/07/2015 at 20:28 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Our goal is to spell out clear rules that everyone can understand.
In the interest of clarifying those "clear rules": When you say that content that is "illegal" will be banned, of which jurisdiction, specifically, are you speaking?
Comment by kdayel at 16/07/2015 at 20:24 UTC
14 upvotes, 1 direct replies
public rules.
Are you implying there are rules that are not public?
Comment by --Petrichor-- at 16/07/2015 at 20:25 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Any banning of content will be carefully considered against our public rules.
Will the specific reasons for any banned content be made transparent?
Comment by smeezekitty at 16/07/2015 at 20:27 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
That really didn't clarify it at all
Comment by Y_dilligaf at 16/07/2015 at 21:06 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I've only been around here for a year, or so, but have you ever tried something along the lines of a sub that is basically a platform for us, the user to decide on what gets banned or not? I have NO idea how this stuff works, I just use it, so I'm assuming that it could be horribly manipulated, but you guys are smart and could possibly work it out? I'm just spit balling an idea here. such as, if a mod, or auto-mod were to flag something, it sends it to a Unique sub and we all vote on it for an hour or so, and if it is up voted enough, the material would be "unhidden" from its original link? Maybe this could be a premium feature, or a 7year+ member perk.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 21:50 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
How does /r/coontown NOT bully, abuse, or harass an individual or group of people? They preach racism, some called for more killings of black people after the Charleston shooting, one of the mods is named after said shooter, and they brigade subreddits. Yet they only get 'reclassified'?
Comment by Adwinistrator at 16/07/2015 at 20:28 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Thanks for the reply. Hopefully there will be a way to give the site some transparency in these types of decisions.
Maybe a subreddit where these rules-based decisions are posted, with the reasoning behind them explained. /r/reddit meets r/karmacourt?
This would at least clarify the types of cases in which these rules will apply, and allow users to either bring similar cases to your attention, or give voice to their disagreement if they feel the rules are not applied fairly (which I feel is everyone's main concern here)
Comment by MsPenguinette at 16/07/2015 at 20:30 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Can you give some ideas as to what the specifics these rules/guidlines will be? I've seen a bunch of comments already that say you will need to be clear on it but without spitballing on ideas, it doesn't really help us have a discussion about the potential rules.
Comment by SeryaphFR at 16/07/2015 at 20:43 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Is this specifically related to content that is being published or does it also include the comment sections?
I mean, if you get down to it, even saying something like "OP is a faggot" could get someone banned under this kind of guideline.
Comment by dingoperson2 at 16/07/2015 at 20:42 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Our goal is to spell out clear rules that everyone can understand. Any banning of content will be carefully considered against our public rules.
Are you joking? Your rules seem designed to be obfuscative.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:32 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Will advocating for the overthrow of the government be bannable? I frequent /r/socialism and /r/FULLCOMMUNISM so I am curious if they will be banned from reddit?