https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/1awm2cj/defending_the_open_internet_again_our_latest/
created by traceroo on 21/02/2024 at 20:13 UTC
352 upvotes, 101 top-level comments (showing 25)
Hi everyone, I’m u/traceroo aka Ben Lee, Reddit’s Chief Legal Officer, and I’m sharing a heads-up on an important Supreme Court case in the United States that could significantly impact freedom of expression online around the world.
1: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-555.html
2: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-277.html
While these are US state laws, their impact would be felt by all Internet users. They would allow a single, government-defined model for online expression to replace the community-driven content moderation approaches of online spaces like Reddit, making content on Reddit--and the Internet as a whole--less relevant and more open to harassment.
This isn’t hypothetical: in 2022, a Reddit user in Texas sued us under the Texas law (HB 20) after he was banned by the moderators of the r/StarTrek community. He had posted a disparaging comment about the Star Trek character Wesley Crusher (calling him a “soy boy”), which earned him a ban under the community’s rule to “be nice.” (It is the height of irony that a comment about Wil Wheaton’s character would violate Wheaton’s Law [4]of “don’t be a dick.”) Instead of taking his content elsewhere, or starting his own community, this user sued Reddit, asking the court to reinstate him in r/StarTrek and award him monetary damages. While we were able to stand up for the moderators of r/StarTrek and get the case dismissed (on procedural grounds), the Supreme Court is reviewing these laws and will decide whether they comply with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Our experience with HB 20 demonstrates the potential impact of these laws on shared online communities as well as the sort of frivolous litigation they incentivize.
4: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wheatons-law
If these state laws are upheld, our community moderators could be forced to keep up content that is irrelevant, harassing, or even harmful. Imagine if every cat community was forced to accept random dog-lovers’ comments. Or if the subreddit devoted to your local city had to keep up irrelevant content about other cities or topics. What if every comment that violated a subreddit’s specific moderation rules had to be left up? You can check out the amicus brief filed by the moderators of r/SCOTUS and r/law[5] for even more examples (they filed their brief independently from us, and it includes examples of the types of content that they remove from their communities–and that these laws would require them to leave up).
Every community on Reddit gets to define what content they embrace and reject through their upvotes and downvotes, and the rules their volunteer moderators set and enforce. It is not surprising that one of the most common community rules is some form of “be civil,” since most communities want conversations that are civil and respectful. And as Reddit the company, we believe our users should always have that right to create and curate online communities without government interference.
Although this case is still ultimately up to the Supreme Court (oral argument will be held on February 26 – you can listen live here[6] on the day), your voice matters. If you’re in the US, you can call your US Senator[7] or Representative[8] to make your voice heard.
6: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
7: https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm
8: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
This is a lot of information to unpack, so I’ll stick around for a bit to answer your questions.
Comment by YouWeatherwax at 21/02/2024 at 20:53 UTC
48 upvotes, 4 direct replies
This might not be relevant for the underlying legal argument. But depending on the outcome there might be legal trouble ahead for mods living in other countries, especially those who moderate country specific subs as the US definition of free speech / freedom of expression might clash with other countries' laws. While it might not a problem for a US citizen to post some things it might be a criminal offence in other countries. Mods could potentially get into legal trouble if they can't delete certain comments or posts.
Comment by shiruken at 21/02/2024 at 20:24 UTC
64 upvotes, 5 direct replies
Wheaton's Law quoted in an actual SCOTUS brief (Page 7): https://i.imgur.com/S9byGIc.png[1][2]
1: https://i.imgur.com/S9byGIc.png
2: https://i.imgur.com/S9byGIc.png
Comment by ashamed-of-yourself at 21/02/2024 at 20:24 UTC
77 upvotes, 1 direct replies
jaysis
*Moderators can also:*
> *• delete posts and comments;*
no, they *can't,* they can only hide it from view in the thread, and i wonder if this technicality is going to make a difference
Comment by PleiadesMechworks at 22/02/2024 at 15:19 UTC
10 upvotes, 1 direct replies
We’re standing up for the First Amendment rights of Redditors to define their own content rules in their own spaces
Admins deleted a post containing a bunch of article and study links I was collecting on my subreddit. How does this fit with your professed belief to define my own content rules in my own space?
Comment by Unique-Public-8594 at 21/02/2024 at 20:23 UTC
40 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Thank you for this open communication, not just your post, but also that comments are welcome.
Comment by HangoverTuesday at 21/02/2024 at 20:52 UTC
133 upvotes, 8 direct replies
So Reddit, who blocked all non-official client apps, and then meddled in the management of supposedly autonomous communities on their platform, is touting an open Internet?
I'm a bit confused.
Comment by fluffykerfuffle3 at 22/02/2024 at 06:15 UTC
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
this litigation is so important
Comment by falsehood at 21/02/2024 at 22:10 UTC
10 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Comment by ashamed-of-yourself at 21/02/2024 at 20:17 UTC
16 upvotes, 1 direct replies
first and most importantly, thank you for your hard work.
second, what are the precedents you're going to be arguing?
Comment by VladWard at 22/02/2024 at 19:12 UTC
4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
u/traceroo Hi Ben. I'm trying to wrap my head around the scenario you've described here:
If these state laws are upheld, our community moderators could be forced to keep up content that is irrelevant, harassing, or even harmful.
How does this not open Reddit up to FLSA liability?
It seems incongruous on its face for the platform to tell moderators who and what and how to moderate in their communities (even at the direction of a court of law) while simultaneously claiming that moderators are independent operators acting without significant oversight.
Comment by PoweredByPierogi at 22/02/2024 at 22:03 UTC
4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
So, still no comment on selling our data to Google, you weasels?
Comment by Titus_Bird at 21/02/2024 at 20:57 UTC
10 upvotes, 2 direct replies
If the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of these laws, rather than trying to comply with them, wouldn't the best solution for Reddit be to disallow users in Texas and Florida from accessing the site? I assume in that case, Texan and Floridian legislation would have no jurisdiction?
Comment by nastafarti at 21/02/2024 at 20:59 UTC
26 upvotes, 4 direct replies
Related, but unrelated. Follow the logic:
reddit is defending itself from being legally responsible for its users' actions by using an semi-arm's length volunteer moderation system. At stake in this case is whether moderators are allowed to moderate: obviously, it seems likely that you will prevail, although the concept of large internet forums as being an analogue to broadcast media is understandable. There'll be more of this, because there is *something* to the idea.
So, reddit is a publisher of other people's content, and I write for free for reddit. I understand that reddit is to be receiving somewhere in the area of $60 billion to allow an AI to be trained on my content. Now, if the AI were to be allowed to be trained for free, I would have no issues, because I support this advance in technology. But because you're getting a $60 billion payout for our content, that creates a problem. Money for thee but not for me? I don't think so. *Users* are the star, here. The site is a backdrop.
So, if you are going to bat for a coalition of volunteer moderators to avoid direct oversight of each individual comment, then your argument is that you are a platform, you publish the works of others, and the mods are editors. When you charge companies to train their AIs, then your argument is that the content is your work, mods have helped to edit it, and the contribution of users disappears. Clearly that doesn't make any sense or seem to have any legal backing. I guess, as chief legal guru at the site, I was wondering if I could get a comment on that ~
Comment by insaneintheblain at 21/02/2024 at 20:49 UTC*
19 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Well at the same time moderators abusing their responsibilities has never been something reddit has taken seriously - is it any wonder people feel frustrated when reddit allows abusive people to take over communities, and disallows any sort of appeals process / mediation?
Reddit is itself a censorship machine.
There are a myriad of creative ways it could improve. But I guess it wasn’t getting any of the feedback and people were just leaving.
Comment by PascalsBet at 06/03/2024 at 15:38 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Thank you for this alert. It is a thorny problem. One of the things I believe we all discovered with the internet, is how many nasty people there are, or at least how loud they can be. Some kind of moderation seems reasonable. But how do you marry that need to our ideals of free speech? When does moderation become unfair censorship? An old latin proverb captures it perfectly: Who will guard the guardians themselves?
Comment by [deleted] at 07/03/2024 at 19:32 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
What rot. Your moderation is out of control and expressing an opinion on this platform is increasingly difficult.
My account was permanently banned because I suggested Antivaxxers get their shots - mostly likely because you're using AI or exploiting third world workers with poor English who misinterpreted shots as shooting someone with a gun.
I have now been warned with a ban for a comment critical of India's racist caste system.
Your censorship system is as pathetic as TikTok which has spawned a 1984'esque new speak where people talk of being 'unalived' and so on.
Reddit - Please deal with your own attack on free speech and improve your hopelessly incompetent moderation system and woeful appeals system
Comment by orangejulius at 13/03/2024 at 17:57 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I'm late to comment here but I'm one of the mods that helped write and file the amicus for /r/law and /r/scotus. I wanted to say thanks for featuring us here and I hope the justices consider our points in Netchoice.
Comment by Worried_Protection48 at 21/02/2024 at 21:33 UTC
10 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Thank you for the heads up and all the work you're doing. 🙏🏽💪🏽
Lmao, these SC judges can't handle any kind of criticism.
exhibit a: 'Justice Amy Coney Barrett is offended by those questioning the impartiality of the Supreme Court.'
It will be a mess. Hate and disinformation will raise like grandma's cake batter on a Sunday morning
Comment by itsaride at 21/02/2024 at 20:19 UTC
18 upvotes, 0 direct replies
could be forced to keep up content that is irrelevant
Surely you wouldn’t remove moderators who modded with the best interests of the community in mind /s
Comment by EnglishMobster at 22/02/2024 at 09:48 UTC
4 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Is there *anything* that can hold mods accountable? In recent months, I've seen an uptick in racism on Reddit, especially against Arabs (mostly starting last October-November, for hopefully obvious reasons).
I spoke up about it politely, contributing to a discussion around the topic on /r/news. The moderators of /r/news permanently banned me (see screenshots of the posts here[1], permalink to the removed content[2], permalink to the ban message[3]).
1: https://imgur.com/a/V0xPeeL
3: https://www.reddit.com/message/messages/21rztui
From your phrasing, it seems that mods must have a reason to ban someone ("which earned him a ban under the community’s rule to 'be nice'"). I was given no reason (and was muted without a response after my polite message asking for more info, which you can see above). Is it true that moderators must have a reason, or can moderators of major subreddits like /r/news truly ban people for no reason other than they disliked a post (a "mega-downvote", as it were)?
Comment by bgovern at 22/02/2024 at 16:17 UTC
4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I find it ironic that Reddit doesn't like these state laws, but bent over backwards trying to give unelected FCC officials regulatory power over the internet a few years ago.
Comment by reaper527 at 21/02/2024 at 20:56 UTC
18 upvotes, 3 direct replies
0 sympathy for reddit on this one. you guys have a major problem with abusive moderators that will permaban users from large communities with no appeal path to go above and beyond that team.
hell, you have large subs with millions of users that will use bots and your api to automatically ban users simply because the participate in subs that the mod team doesn't like.
this is a classic case of "you reap what you sow".
hopefully the courts set a very clear precedent that the way you guys (and the "landed gentry" as spez referred to entrenched mod teams as) run things is unacceptable.
Comment by Tft_ai at 22/02/2024 at 15:10 UTC
6 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I suppose you would have suggested the user to make their own subreddit if they disagreed with the /r/startrek mods.
But wait, no one is ever going to see /r/startrek2 are they? The original mods camp the first spot and get all the traffic despite zero actual qualifications over someone setting up /r/startrek2.
Reddit is built on the lie it's about a community, it's about certain very online people snagging every relevant username first
Comment by Barry_Bond at 22/02/2024 at 16:56 UTC
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Reddit losing this case would be better for the open internet.
Comment by ChainedHare at 22/02/2024 at 17:34 UTC
6 upvotes, 0 direct replies
If these state laws are upheld, our community moderators could be forced to keep up content that is irrelevant, harassing, or even harmful.
This law just kept getting better the more I read about it.
Hope you take the L <3
