881 upvotes, 15 direct replies (showing 15)
View submission: Update to Our Content Policy
While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.
What is your process for determining which groups are in the majority? Are you using global population statistics? Or, as it's a US-based site, are we using US census data? Will this be updated as demographics change?
I think to make this policy even more transparent, it might be nice to have a specific list of which groups are not covered, which is to say which groups of people can I create a community to promote hate against? Which actual and perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or disability status are we allowed to incite violence against?
Am I able to create a community dedicated to encouraging people go out and attack and kill people who *aren't* pregnant?
Edit: Per this comment[1] it seems like the violent portion is a no-go but a subreddit devoted towards making hateful content directed towards the "UNBRED" would be totally kosher.
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/update_to_our_content_policy/fwe9te8/
Double edit: Just in case anyone gets the wrong idea, I think I'm broadly supportive of this *except for the quoted bit*. Just delete that. Why go out of your way to make the policy worse?
All of this is going to be decided on a case-by-case basis anyway, so the new policy is functionally indistinguishable from the old one. They just needed to "update" it to justify banning the subreddits they wanted to ban anyway.
But why specifically make it a point to say that there are SOME groups of people that you *are* allowed to single out and be hateful towards? Why can't it just be a blanket statement about everyone being cool? Why write a thing about how we don't want people harassed online because of things fundamental to themselves UNLESS there are a lot of them? Just delete the quoted part! What the fuck! It would take fewer words and less effort to have a better, more egalitarian policy.
Comment by alexnader at 29/06/2020 at 22:55 UTC
155 upvotes, 3 direct replies
Am I able to create a community dedicated to encouraging people go out and attack and kill people who aren't pregnant?
This example is beautiful.
Let's try a few other groups reddit has now officially deemed it is A-OK to actively hate and harass:
For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority
People with two functioning eyes.
People who can walk
People who can speak
People with hair
People who sleep at night
People who have a phone
People who eat
...
It's like a ridiculous Dr. Seuss of who's who you can harass, according to these thinly veiled racist and discriminatory rules.
Comment by Genji_sama at 30/06/2020 at 00:08 UTC
223 upvotes, 5 direct replies
So does that mean r/fatPeopleHate will be unbanned? Is it okay to hate fat people now since they are the majority (in America[1])?
1: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/obesity-overweight.htm
Edit: 70% are "overweight" so does that mean r/OverweightPeopleHate is now officially sanctioned by u/spez?
Comment by yossiea at 30/06/2020 at 01:41 UTC
13 upvotes, 2 direct replies
You used the word kosher. Not sure if that's kosher in the new rules of Reddit. That is cultural appropriation of my identity and using my religion for your argument. And I'm not in the majority, since I am in the USA, but I am a male, so not sure how that works, but I do live east of the Mississippi if we are doing it based on population centering.
Comment by [deleted] at 29/06/2020 at 23:59 UTC
51 upvotes, 1 direct replies
This is such a good example of why large entities (governments, social media companies, etc) should not try to influence speech.
Comment by [deleted] at 30/06/2020 at 01:53 UTC*
10 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by daeronryuujin at 30/06/2020 at 01:33 UTC
6 upvotes, 2 direct replies
What is your process for determining which groups are in the majority? Are you using global population statistics? Or, as it's a US-based site, are we using US census data? Will this be updated as demographics change?
Oh the definition of the majority is quite simple.
Race: white
Gender: cis male
Orientation: straight
Sex: male
So the definition depends on the topic at hand, but there's only one definition per category.
Comment by Piece_o_Ham at 30/06/2020 at 06:00 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.
Comment by Lognipo at 30/06/2020 at 13:34 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The problem with that is they would have to seriously change the way they moderate. Reddit is chock full of hatred, but it is *the right kid of hatred* according to this new policy, so they do not have to do anything about it. If they started seriously banning people and subs for hatred without adding this exception, they would be loudly and rightly called out for turning a blind eye to the overwhelming dearth of hatred for "the majority" pervading the rest of Reddit. And so here we stand, with rules that make it explicitly OK. This is disgusting. Let's not mince words.
It is the same logic behind recent moves by the left to actually reverse civil rights legislation. It prevents what they feel is *the right kind* of discrimination, so it has to go.
Comment by tupapa5 at 30/06/2020 at 19:03 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
That is EXACTLY my thoughts. This is such an easy, all on board set of policies until that fucking half sentence. That’s exactly the type of shit that makes society actively worse, and it’s the most pointless, hate inciting statement that doesn’t even need to be included.
Comment by tvxl at 03/07/2020 at 13:37 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
So is attacking black people fine in the r/southafrica subreddit?
Comment by ImProbablyNotABird at 30/06/2020 at 21:32 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Women are also the numerical majority in most developed nations.
Comment by [deleted] at 30/06/2020 at 13:33 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Lets just make /r/killallwhitepeople and see what happens
Comment by [deleted] at 30/06/2020 at 04:28 UTC*
-2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I agree this rule doesn’t read very well. I would much prefer that all groups are treated equally. However, if you want to give reddit the benefit of the doubt, here is why this rule might make sense:
A reason to have a rule that only protects certain groups of people could be because of limited resources for enforcement. It might be that you only have enough manpower to protect some people, and not everyone.
And if you have to choose which groups to protect, it makes sense to protect the minority groups. The people that are part of a majority group have the protection of the mob, the crowd.
I don’t know how many admins reddit has for enforcing these rules. If they are short-handed, this rule begins to make more sense.
There is the nuance of determining what group constitutes a minority group, as others have pointed out.
Comment by Antonykhoury at 29/06/2020 at 20:40 UTC*
-24 upvotes, 2 direct replies
"Minority "doesn't matter rich people are a minority , they are not a "marginalised group" and reddit clarified this up there ^ i can say fuck rich people. But i can't say fuck black people. Because black people are a member of a marginalised froup , rich people are not.
Comment by [deleted] at 30/06/2020 at 16:30 UTC
0 upvotes, 0 direct replies
GREAT REPLY
STILL VOTING TRUMP