1714 upvotes, 43 direct replies (showing 25)
View submission: Let's talk content. AMA.
I can tell you with confidence that these specific communities are not what we are referring to. Not even close.
But this is also why I prefer separation over banning. Banning is like capital punishment, and we don't want to do it except in the clearest of cases.
Comment by SpawnPointGuard at 16/07/2015 at 21:10 UTC*
835 upvotes, 9 direct replies
But this is the problem we've been having. Even if we're not on the list, the rules seem so wishy washy that none of us know how to even follow them. There are a lot of communities that don't feel safe because of that. The last wave of sub bans used reasoning that didn't apply. In the case of /r/NeoFAG, it was like the admins didn't even go there once before making the decision. It was a sub that was critical of the NeoGAF forums, such as the leader using his position to cover up a sexual assault he committed against a female user he met up with. /r/NeoGAFInAction was banned as well without justification.
All I ask is that you please reevaluate the previous bans.
Comment by The_Year_of_Glad at 16/07/2015 at 20:53 UTC
401 upvotes, 8 direct replies
I can tell you with confidence that these specific communities are not what we are referring to. Not even close.
This is why it is important for you to clarify exactly what you mean by "illegal" in the original post of rules. E.g. British law on BDSM and BDSM-related media is fairly restrictive.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 21:03 UTC*
8 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:51 UTC
504 upvotes, 5 direct replies
Perhaps you could go into more detail about the communities that you are referring to? I think that would be very relevant here.
Comment by blaqkhand at 16/07/2015 at 20:52 UTC
27 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Does "clearest of cases" still fall under the "know it when you see it" umbrella? What is your definition of clear, aside from your vague Wikipedia-linked answer?
Comment by His_elegans at 16/07/2015 at 22:01 UTC
7 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I can tell you with confidence that these specific communities are not what we are referring to. Not even close.
r/HotRapeStories was banned. Will r/BDSMerotica be banned because it contains rape stories? These two seem pretty dang close to me. (Granted, I have no idea what the content of HotRapeStories was like, since it's now banned, so I'm basing this off of its name alone.)
Comment by Darr_Syn at 16/07/2015 at 20:53 UTC
11 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Fair enough.
I do hope that the official wording will reflect this position.
The current wording puts a number of subreddits, activities, and even discussions, in a very bad light due to the use of terms "illegal" and "harmful" considering how both terms are fluid depending on both physical location and specific definitions.
Thank you for answering.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:55 UTC
13 upvotes, 3 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 21:04 UTC
7 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I can tell you with confidence that these specific communities are not what we are referring to.
This is not good enough. You're saying that *right now* those communities aren't what the vague rules will be targeting. How about in three years when you have a change of heart, similar to the "bastion of free speech" flip flop. We really need a set of specific rules about the type of content that is not allowed here.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:51 UTC*
32 upvotes, 5 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 21:01 UTC
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The problem is this is arbitrary, and comes down to some remote person's sense of decency/understanding.
I don't like it, you are assuming responsibility for content, which is having it both ways.
Comment by KiraKira_ at 16/07/2015 at 21:23 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
You mean that you're encouraging hate subs to dog whistle. Rapingwomen is a troll sub with no interest in remaining active. It's good that you'll ban it, but you're effectively doing nothing. Hate subs that want to remain active, *because they actually believe what they say*, will just add a note in their sidebar encouraging users to use veiled threats instead.
Comment by Hubris2 at 16/07/2015 at 22:56 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Can you explain further what the proposed 'offensive' tag (in addition to the existing NSFW) is intended to address? I understand the idea of marking or categorizing subs so that people can generally make decisions about the content they view....but you are judging and labeling if you force a BDSM community to accept a label of 'offensive' because some might find it such. Surely someone could find a sub dealing with gay/les/trans issues offensive - do they need to be labeled and separated as well?
Comment by HaikuberryFin at 16/07/2015 at 20:50 UTC
20 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Is it possible
to harrass via Hiaku-
since Haikus are art?
Comment by Krelkal at 16/07/2015 at 20:53 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think you'd have to be a bit of a masochist to take on the role of Reddit CEO. It's safe to say /u/spez is a bit of a kinkster himself.
Comment by ottawadeveloper at 16/07/2015 at 21:48 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This is why "illegal" is a really hard word to use.
Even Canadian law is pretty restrictive, as is the UK law; I don't believe you can consent to harm in Canada, and BDSM is largely a "nobody complains, keep on doing it" thing. I fear we could go the way of the US.
Another point would be conversations like the ones that were had about pedophiles who haven't offended and consider themselves unlikely to offend. It's still really questionable whether or not even admitting to having the thoughts could put you in prison in some jurisdictions, yet these are interesting points of view that are rarely considered.
LGBT communities are illegal in so many places (like Russia) still.
Polygamy is illegal in most countries (including the US / Canada / UK), yet we advocate for it on the polyamory boards and some people are outright breaking the law.
What will happen to /r/trees, given that marijuana is only legal in some states?
What if I want to say that the government isn't doing enough on climate change, and the system is corrupt, and should be replaced? What about the Arab Spring?
What about whistleblowers who committed crimes? Can we share the information they gave Wikileaks?
The list would go on. But it's important to have a clear line on this. When it comes to "illegality", what laws are we talking about, and can we advocate to change those laws still?
Comment by Sterling__Archer_ at 16/07/2015 at 22:38 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
What about banning clones of banned subreddits?
FPH banned? FPH1-5? were banned within minutes of being made while doing nothing wrong other than having the name FPH.
It's pretty clear the admins ban based on emotion and their feelings rather than the rules..
Comment by m1ndwipe at 16/07/2015 at 20:55 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I can tell you with confidence that these specific communities are not what we are referring to. Not even close.
Then put it formally in writing in the rules, and make those communities open to everyone without login, and frustrate government efforts to filter and censor those subs in order to risk the lives of posters there.
Anything less and you're punishing minorities.
Comment by theNYEHHH at 16/07/2015 at 20:53 UTC
4 upvotes, 2 direct replies
What about /r/candidfashionpolice? It opened up shortly after /r/creepshots was taken down. It is just a copy of it and everyone knows it. (Thanks for the correction flatisjustice!)
Comment by 99639 at 16/07/2015 at 21:32 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
How is that supposed to reassure us? Staff and opinions change, you're asking us to be ok with living in apparent violation of the rules just because you "promise" not to enforce them on us today...
Comment by Ethanol_Based_Life at 16/07/2015 at 20:54 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Perhaps, when you do hand down your capital punishment, a simple (but specific) explanation would help. We could all learn the rules through trial and error.
Comment by sconeTodd at 16/07/2015 at 21:22 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Maybe /r/BDSM can be in charge of punishment?
Comment by pie-oh at 16/07/2015 at 23:19 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
So instead of banning, you're sweeping them under the rug.
Flat out, they're toxic. So this will build until it builds into something greater. It's already a topic of great debate.
I don't get it. Why do you want your board to be full of racists and hateful people. Why do you feel good that free speech is more important.
The very anti-women rhetoric (hidden under the guise of Anti-SJW)
How about the free speech of people they're driving out? Just putting a sheet of newspaper over them isn't going to fix anything. It'll hide it, but they'll grow, they'll carry on infesting subs like /r/videos and /r/funny.
On your death bed will you be counting up all your things:
The whole outside world thinks Reddit is a racist, sexist, horrible place. And they're right on so many levels. It's what new users sure see. I've unsubscribed from almost all the main subs, and once in a while I check in - and sure enough, it's people legitimising pedophilia, or racism.
And you're like "Well, free speech. It's a great notion. Doesn't matter if we cause harm to the world." Making this place a more decent place doesn't harm free speech. Just as allowing racists, sexists and the like to run free on Reddit makes the world a better place.
Comment by TeamArrow at 16/07/2015 at 20:55 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Maybe then you should reword these guidelines, or exempt some subreddits.
Comment by chollyer at 16/07/2015 at 21:13 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
With all due respect (sincerely), how can folks be sure that this isn't the next target of ire? We were once told Reddit is for free speech, period. That's changed now as management has changed, but more specifically society has changed.
So what is to say that (hypothetically) 4 years from now society has deemed BDSM to be a completely unacceptable behavior and then becomes the next target in an age of protecting people from dangerous ideas?
TLDR: As the goalposts have already moved - why shouldn't we expect them to again?