Slashdot Mirror
Reddit Imposes Ban On Sexual Content Posted Without Permission
Mark Wilson writes If you want to post naked pictures or videos of people on Reddit without their consent, you only have a couple of weeks to do so. As of March, the site is imposing a ban on content of an explicit nature that the subject has not given permission to be posted. The cleanup of the site comes hot on the heels of news from Google that explicit content will be banned from Blogger. It also comes in the wake of last year's Fappening which saw a glut of naked celebrity photos leaked online.
Until it tries to uphold it.
Lie and say you have permission?
I don't think anyone uploads pictures to Reddit. It's mostly posts linked to imgur.
The alternative would be that nobody is allowed to post ANYTHING until someone has verified that it is either (1) not nudity/pornography, or else (2) that it comes accompanied with some kind of proof of permission.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Reddit's decline started before the censorship of Gamergate. It started before the Something Awful forums invaded SRS and turned it into a joke. It's never was about gender wars. (although some of those events were symptomatic) It was never about politics. (although political vote warring and karma whoring added to the mess.)
Reddit's decline started the first time legal speech that no one liked was censored. It was an unpopular board. It was a popular decision to ban it despite it not violating rules. I'm not going to name the subreddit that was deleted because which sub it started with is irrelevant.Reddit administration banned a board, signaling that any sufficiently unpopular speech could be removed at will by administration. From that moment those seeking to remove various forms of speech started to work toward influencing admins.
Some people will applaud this action, saying that no one should have their private pictures posted without their consent. Some people will call this an issue of right to privacy. Those people are misguided.
When a forum starts to limit legal speech a slowly growing cancer of censorship is inevitable. And don't say, "slippery slope". This has happened over and over and over. It doesn't matter whether people should be posting such pictures. It doesn't matter how distasteful they are. It doesn't matter what intent the poster has. Or how distasteful the poster is. Or the reader. It happened at Digg. It has happened in certain churches. It has happened in Korea. It happened in Russia and China. "It's okay to ban this kind of speech" is never. Never true.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Better yet, stop pretending your body is some special butterfly that will cause the sky to fall and dogs to make love to cats should somebody actually get a look at it. The whole body paranoia thing is a society wide neurosis. At best. You look very similar to everyone else. The more you take off, the more that's true.
I'd rather see someone dressed to the max than naked any day, I think probably because it actually tells me something about their self image at the time. It means nothing negative to me to see them naked, and frankly, not a whole lot positive. Meh. Truly.
Of course, then we have the motivational "gifts" provided by superstition, but I already mentioned neurosis, so...
Its people's reaction to seeing naked pictures of you that are the problem. You can get fired, disqualified from jobs, shunned, and all around your life can become a living hell.
If you get beat up in a alley, the damage (aside for the psychological damage from the event itself) might go away once the wounds heal. If you're a teacher and students find pictures of you? You potentially can kiss your career (or at least your next promotion) good bye.
And its one thing if the person allowed the picture to be taken (though even then, but whatever), but a lot of people abuse of positions of trust, and a lot of those pictures are taken without consent. There's a LOT of assholes out there.
I wouldn't say doing it once (at least the suit, have no idea or evidence about the affairs) represents a "history". If she sues Reddit next, then I would call it a history. Also, the information I see says that it was not a harassment suit, but a gender discrimination suit. Hard to claim gender discrimination when they make her a CEO. Although I would suspect a guy could probably make a good claim (that would be thrown out because discriminating against males is okay) that Reddit is just hopping on the bandwagon of female CEOs and are thus illegally discriminating based on gender.
Now, if she is really getting involved in affairs with employees, I might go get me a job at Reddit. She's one hot CEO. I'll get my wife's permission first, or course.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I was curious about your comment and ended up binge reading stuff about Pao. Based on what I've read, you are spot on.
Fascinating stuff. Thanks for sharing.
lucm, indeed.
I take my stand on the proposition that the publication of nude and/or sexually explicit photographs without the consent of the subject is a form of rape.
This not art. This is not speech.
This is humiliation. This is malice. This is revenge. This is greed. This is crime. Revenge porn
Free speech cannot survive in an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Free speech has to mean something more than the adolescent's desire for instant sexual self-gratification.
In the form of an illicit photograph to masturbate by.
I am sick and tired of the geek playing the censorship card when anyone asks him to behave like an adult.
Yes. Next question?
Too be more expansive: If you think that I as a host should not have the right to throw abusive visitors out of a gathering at my place, you're a fucking idiot.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
1. If it's not government if it's not censorship.
2. We should not be surprised that these organisations have to limit their liability as a response to abuse by their users.
3. No, we should not be happy that their users have effectively forced them to do this.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
1: Wrong.
2: There's almost no liability.
3: The users haven't forced anything.
"1. If it's not government if it's not censorship." do you mean "1. If it's not government, it's not censorship."? If so, you are dead wrong. Radio stations censoring songs, TV censoring shows, movie whatever censoring movies even when the law does not say it should be censored. That is censoring even when the mighty, evil government is not doing it.
If it was a property issue, shouldn't it then go for all posted pics, sounds, videos, documents etc.?
They do single out nudity as subject matter.