Comment by Huwbacca on 14/05/2015 at 21:13 UTC

-9 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)

View submission: Promote ideas, protect people

I mean... that definition is pretty clear. What aspects of it are vague?

Replies

Comment by [deleted] at 14/05/2015 at 21:29 UTC

14 upvotes, 1 direct replies

Really? You find this clear?

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.

If I was lawyer, I'd say:

What is an action on reddit? Is an upvote or a downvote an action? Is posting a submission an action? Is complaining to a mod an action? Is commenting an action? Upvoting or downvoting an action?

What is the definition 'demean'?

What is a 'reasonable' in the context of a global online community. There are users from Reddit from traditional societies, where women have few rights and that's considered 'reasonable'. Should a traditional tribesman from an isolated village in South America be held accountable to American San Francisco standards of 'reasonable'? In some countries, being homosexual is illegal, and it is permissible to discriminate on that basis. It would not be considered unreasonable to exclude, shun, or mock someone for that reason. Who decides what a reasonable person would do, and what happens if that definition of reasonable is demeaning to other users of Reddit, who only wish to have their ideas added to the conversation?

4. Define 'safety'. Does this mean, "not experiencing discomfort", or "being happy" or "being comfortable", or something else?

Those are just definition problems. In terms of application, I would want to know:

1. What standard of evidence will be required to apply the "reasonable" person standard?

2. What are the penalties available, what the notifications in place, and what is recourse when a judgement has been made unfairly?

3. What is the presumption of guilt upon making allegation against a person? Are complaints presumed valid, or invalid until proved valid?

4. Don't protected subreddits, that have membership requirements, automatically run afoul of this new policy? A subreddit that requires credentials to comment or make submissions by definition is not a safe platform for expression, and any comment that suggests membership requirements that are enforced is by it's definition in violation of the new standard.

In the big picture, the question really should be:

1. Why isn't Reddit able to be as transparent with Wikipedia? Why can't complaints be made public automatically, with deliberations by admin's or mod's carried out in public. in full view of everyone, and subject to scrutiny and discussion?

2. What is Reddit's level of commitment to protecting people who have unpopular ideas who wish to add them to the discussion? If other users find them demeaning, no matter how sincerely held, isn't Reddit narrowing the scope of acceptable topics?

And, most importantly:

*3. Doesn't bringing "safety" into the conversation expose how this policy is already a joke? If something someone publishes on Reddit makes another reasonable person fear for his or her safety, shouldn't Reddit's first duty be to involve law enforcement?**