3 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Let's talk content. AMA.
I am making an assumption, and I think a fair one, that the intent and outcome of this line is really about bulk actions on reddit. Like banning subreddits.
Harassment, being the legal definition, while still vague generally involves one-on-one interactions through personal channels or in the real world – especially around one's home or place of work – especially for private citizens, that is the bar is set considerably higher for public figures or people making public statements.
Harassment is already illegal, and building tools to minimize it is a good idea as long as the cure isn't worse than the disease.
What about "bullying a group of people" – that could mean anything, and it's why I'm assuming "harassment" doesn't really have much to do with the legal definition in this context.
The problem is several recent actions that were overtly about silencing people who weren't being nice. There's a difference between that and harassment, and that distinction *isn't* being made. Instead it seems pretty clear that the goal is to expand (and weaken) what harassment means to include anything a certain set of groupthinkers find unacceptable.
Comment by Starsy at 16/07/2015 at 23:43 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
It was always clear that the people who were silenced were leaving the domain of their "clubhouse" and seeking out their targets. That distinction has been made repeatedly. It was stated over and over that the reason those subreddits were banned is because they were brigading and otherwise seeking out targets, not just staying in their corner and talking about how much they hate fat people.
If you want to disagree that that's what they were *actually* doing, then that's fine. But that's not what you've said so far. You're attacking the policy itself as unclear, but in reality, it's been stated and enforced very clearly.