797 upvotes, 59 direct replies (showing 25)
View submission: Let's talk content. AMA.
I'm specifically soliciting feedback on this language. The goal is to make it as clear as possible.
Comment by RamsesThePigeon at 16/07/2015 at 20:53 UTC
392 upvotes, 8 direct replies
While we're on the topic of specific language, can we make it a goal to define what *exactly* is meant by each type of prohibited content?
Is someone who frequently posts "spamming," or does the word specifically describe content with that directs to advertisements and malware?
According to whose laws?
What constitutes "private and confidential?"
If I write a comment in which I suggest that the Muppets are guilty of hate-speech, and if my comment prompts someone to harass Kermit the Frog, am I at fault?
Others have touched on this one already. The question remains.
If I tell the story of losing my virginity (at age sixteen), am I breaking a rule? What if I talk about sneaking into the women's locker room at age six?
Comment by zk223 at 16/07/2015 at 20:44 UTC
1656 upvotes, 16 direct replies
Here you go:
No Submission may identify an individual, whether by context or explicit reference, and contain content of such a nature as to place that individual in reasonable fear that the Submitter will cause the individual to be subjected to a criminal act. "Reasonable fear," as used in the preceding sentence, is an objective standard assessed from the perspective of a similarly situated reasonable person.
Comment by colechristensen at 16/07/2015 at 21:01 UTC
196 upvotes, 11 direct replies
Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)
There is no language which is going to make this acceptable.
What this says is you are no longer to express negative opinions about any person or group.
Is http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/[1] harassment? It's funny, not hateful, but clearly singles out a single group. Is /r/blackpeopletwitter harassment? It can be pretty funny too (sure there are a minority of racists in there spreading hate)
1: http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/
How about berating Sean Hannity for his bullshit about waterboarding? Can we hate on Vladimir Putin?
In an open forum, people need to be able to be called out on their shit. Sometimes for amusement, sometimes for serious purposes. "Harassment" is ill defined. We can all agree that encouraging internet idiots to gather their pitchforks is almost always a bad idea (or maybe not, what about gathering petition signatures?)
There are a lot of fat people who are really full of themselves and spout nonsense about "loving your body" when in reality they're promoting hugely dangerous behaviors. Some of the reactionaries go way overboard as well – you end up trying and ultimately failing to make a line in the sand because there isn't any real distinction you can draw.
You can ban serious hate speech (which is hard to define, but still easy enough to see, like pornography), and you can ban brigading behaviors.
You can't ban "harassment" because there's no definition.
This hyper-sensitive culture that's arising is a real problem, and you're promoting it.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:44 UTC
45 upvotes, 1 direct replies
spez, it'll never be clear. Because harassment is subjective. You're trying to make something that's really impossible to make.
Comment by bl1y at 16/07/2015 at 20:46 UTC
8 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I would look to a criminal definition of harassment. Start with model penal code, then some state statutes, and you'll be in good shape.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:45 UTC
26 upvotes, 5 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by DuhTrutho at 16/07/2015 at 20:45 UTC
11 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Where will that finalized language be found after you guys are finished making it as clear as possible?
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:59 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I don't think a rational line can be drawn, as is. While understandable in a way, the idea of hiding "objectionable" but not illegal material will convert the entirety of Reddit into a "safe space".
Anything will be offensive to SOMEone. Slapping the trigger warning onto subreddits/posts will have already guaranteed that someone, somewhere will feel offended by an opposing world view on practically any topic, and try to silence opposing views under the guise of feeling threatened/bullied into silence themselves, because of their beliefs being questioned.
And who will make this determination against each post? If it is left to moderators, then any given user would potentially risk a site-wide ban because of the ideaology of one subreddit's moderator?
Comment by Shelton512 at 16/07/2015 at 20:44 UTC
26 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think the feedback has been clear. Don't include it at all.
Comment by woohalladoobop at 16/07/2015 at 20:47 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I don't think anybody is going to come up with a good definition. Seems like an impossible problem. Harassment is always going to be a bit of a "know it when I see it" sort of thing on reddit.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:50 UTC*
6 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by hobnobbinbobthegob at 16/07/2015 at 20:49 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Well good, because I haven't seen that much grey area since the photos of Pluto.
Comment by Iregretthisusername at 17/07/2015 at 16:28 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Our Harassment policy says "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,"
and
I can give you examples of things we deal with on a regular basis that would be considered harassment:
* Going into self help subreddits for people dealing with serious emotional issues and telling people to kill themselves.
I think this definition, when combined with the examples you provided give a clear picture of what qualifies as harassment *to an individual*. However what is far less clear is how this anti-harassment policy will be applied to groups claiming harassment, or used to make a judgement on behalf of those groups.
As /u/-Massachoosite points out, once you start considering groups that have conflicting ideologies (regardless of whether both of those groups are represented on Reddit), the issue of harassment become much more difficult to define.
Comment by Logical1ty at 16/07/2015 at 21:31 UTC*
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
How is this:
"Behavior (by an individual or a subreddit at a systemic level) which is intended to silence or disrupt others' exercise of their right to discussion."
Fundamentally, this is something reddit has traditionally allowed. So they will not be happy about it.
For one example, let's say you run into someone whose opinions you disagree with. You start responding to their every comment, following them into other threads and subreddits, you start harassing them in non-stop private messages, etc. This fits under your rule, but fundamentally many redditors (and the young male demographic they represent) who would engage in this type of activity or sympathize with it, will not like it being a ban-worthy offense.
Because the victim here can always just ignore the person and go on. Delete their PMs, block them (is that a feature? if not, it should be), other users will downvote them, etc. The perpetrators will point this out because being in the shoes of the perpetrator, they see their own behavior as essentially harmless (since all they can do is post a few measly comments and not do any "real" harm).
What they don't see is that in the shoes of the victim, even receiving a little negative attention in this way is enough to frighten, yes even if irrationally, and discourage you from posting.
You are not going to find clear language which reddit will be happy with. I think enabling a "blocking" feature (so everyone else can see the user you blocked's comments but they're invisible to you) along with strict enforcement of doxxing rules is the only middle ground.
On a more common, wider, level this involves users who repeatedly "troll" certain subreddits. Whether they admit it or not, this has the targeted effect of disrupting discussion in the targeted subreddit. They get banned by moderators, create new accounts, and come back until eventually, they're shadowbanned (this is what they don't want you to make policy) at which point they'll try for a new IP and come back. But here the easy rule is "circumventing subreddit bans repeatedly can result in site-wide shadowban". Obviously if a subreddit has banned you, you are not welcome there. Going back repeatedly is at that point unquestionably a form of harassment/bullying/disruption.
So, TL:DR:
This would effectively nullify a lot of the bullying experience on reddit and it's based off existing rules/tools.
I think you have to create a team of, perhaps paid, "supermods" who focus on complaints of the latter two points. There's going to be a lot of "policing" to be done in response to user complaints.
Comment by catcradle5 at 16/07/2015 at 21:08 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
In my opinion, you need to use very specific and explicit language, with clear examples.
A large part of the uproar over the FPH ban is that:
1. Admins simply said the subreddit was "harassing" but did not elaborate further.
2. No evidence or examples of FPH's harassment of other redditors or non-redditors was ever provided by reddit staff. It took a while for people to actually see screenshot/archive evidence of FPH insulting redditors who posted submissions in other subreddits, and posting personal information of imgur employees. Staff did not make any mention of these activities, and most of the community was unaware these activities occurred, so a large portion of redditors assumed the ban was simply because the content was distasteful and mean.
That was handled very poorly due to the vague communication. And the Victoria incident had *no* communication initially, not publicly or privately to mods.
The new content policy rules *need* to be extremely specific and not open to broad interpretation. "Harass" and "bully" are vague verbs and can mean many different things to many people.
These scandals will stop occurring if both the rules, and statements made after staff enforce those rules, are very explicit and detailed.
Comment by freet0 at 16/07/2015 at 21:25 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think you need to make some distinctions. It should be:
1. Using channels not intended for feedback. If someone posts a congressman's public email address and a bunch of people email him because they're upset about an upcoming bill then that's not harassment. That's just a lot of people using a public communication for its purpose.
2. Excessive/Following. If someone tells me to go kill myself in one comment that's not harassment. That's just being a dick. If they message me every day or follow me into other subs to say that then that's a different story.
3. If you're banning a sub rather than a user for this then there should be evidence that the sub's moderators are either encouraging or refusing to try to prevent the harassment. And in the case of prevention the admins need to try to work with the mods first because they have access to data the mods don't. Many mods may not be aware of the level of harassment because they can't see private messages or how users get to a sub.
Comment by absynthe7 at 16/07/2015 at 20:55 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The main thing that differentiates, I think, would be a *pattern* of behavior. Two people arguing in a comment thread should be fine, within the rules of that sub, but one person following another from thread to thread or continually sending PM's could get weird.
Basically, if one person is trying to disengage, but the other is forcing them to keep dealing with them, that would generally be where problems start. I'm just not sure how to put it succinctly and clearly without it being too all-encompassing.
"Disagreement is okay. Bullying, harassment, and abuse are not. Disagreement is two-way, even if one is acting 'worse' than the other, and ends when one disengages. Bullying, harassment, and abuse are one-way and ongoing, without an ability to escape short of leaving Reddit entirely."
That still wouldn't work, I think, but it's closer than what you've got, IMHO.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 21:04 UTC*
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
/u/spez
I strongly suggest you link this to the US legal code regarding stalking and harassment.
I believe even doxing is covered under such codes, as posting dox to a public forum like reddit could be interpreted as "intent to harm" by default.
You could also incorporate the UK's legal code surrounding defamation to cover "bullying", as it tends to be the considered the strongest but has not resulted in the UK becoming an Orwellian state.
I'd also like to point out the UK has press rules regarding 'right to reply'. Any major sub posting material critical of a person or movement should be required to allow civil response in-thread as a bulwark against radicalizing echo-chambers.
The resistance and cynicism regarding "tumblrite" definitions of "criticism=bullying=harassment" would disappear pretty quickly with guidelines like this.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:46 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Use SPECIFIC words, for starters.
Comment by GrinningPariah at 16/07/2015 at 21:04 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think the language needs to clearly call out:
Furthermore, at every turn possible, I think it's far better to remove individuals than remove subreddits.
Comment by Keyframe at 16/07/2015 at 22:47 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The goal is to make it as clear as possible.
I don't think you can win this one. /u/-Massachoosite said well that there's no way around it, where's the line, what's the difference between fatpeoplehate and coontown at its core and what does that core codify into in order to make it clear? This is a social question that dates back to ancient Greece and was never solved without editorial (so maybe sub-government to the mods is a solution?). Solution you're seeking here (which hasn't been solved and will not) is how to be an open platform for people to communicate as freely as they (seem) to want and be Radio Disney in the (advertisers) public eye? If you get to solve that, there's a sociology/psychology paper in that, I bet.
Comment by KafkasWonderfulLife at 16/07/2015 at 20:53 UTC*
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
If you want guidance on how to change the line - **"Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)"**
then I'd use the language that the US appeals court used in its recent decision regarding Title IX on university speech (I'll look it up for you if you wish.)
Essentially, that for speech to be unacceptable, that it must be a specific threat. Not "upsetting" and not "derogatory," but specific and specifying a harm. Anything else is entirely too arbitrary. Anyone can feel "offended" or "silenced," but that's purely subjective.
If its good enough for a US justice, weighing speech vs access to education, it should be good enough for reddit.
Comment by spazturtle at 16/07/2015 at 21:10 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
"Bullying" subs should be allowed as long as they keep to themselves, banning the sub won't make people not hate a group of people, it just means they will do it in other places and make mods jobs harder.
The banning of FPH just meant that I had to deal with increased levels of fat hate comments on the sub I moderate. Before people could post cosplay pics without people calling them whales, after FPH was banned multiple people started making those sorts of comments.
If FPH hadn't been banned users would have received LESS harassment.
By banning hate subs you increase the amount of harassment and hate on the site. If you leave those subs alone it remains isolated and doesn't affect other people.
Comment by Battess at 16/07/2015 at 21:00 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
How about "Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people *in a way that has a demonstrable effect on their life/lives outside of Reddit, without their continued consent or engagement*"?
One problem with the ambiguity of this rule (even as I rewrote it) is the line between criticism and harassment of public figures is not always clear. For example Toronto's mayor Rob Ford became a target of mockery and hatred after his crack-smoking and other misadventures became relatively big news stories. Did Reddit discussions or links about him constitute incitements to harassment? Would a call to put public pressure on him to resign count as bullying?
Comment by Bonemesh at 16/07/2015 at 21:28 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
That's the *only* one of your proposals that I find fault with. The language in that bullet is far too broad. What does it even mean to "harrass, bully, or abuse" a *group* of people? While that clause could be used to ban some hateful subreddits that I woundn't miss, it could also quite easily be used to ban subreddits that host controversial political/social points of view. And that could cut *both* ways, affecting passionate left- or right-oriented communities, that sometimes insult their opposition as part of their activism.
I would strongly urge removing that clause, and focusing on banning subs or users that threaten or harrass *individuals*.