Reddit CEO: Site Is 'Not a Bastion of Free Speech,' Change Coming

An anonymous reader writes: Reddit's new CEO, cofounder Steve Huffman, has made a statement regarding the site's controversial racism- and abuse-related community "subreddits." He said, "we don't have any obligation to support them." In the brief announcement, Huffman explains that a robust content policy is something they have "been thinking about for quite some time" and is in the cards in the near future. It has also come to light via former CEO Yishan Wong that ousted interim boss Ellen Pao was one of the few defenders of the controversial subreddits, favoring a strategy of coexistence over the board's plan to eliminate problem communities. Wong blames another co-founder, Alexis Ohanian, for strategy changes that led to the firing of "Ask Me Anything" administrator Victoria Taylor whose unexpected absence crippled that component of the site.

Comments

No Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Means no more page views from me. I really enjoyed the idea of a site that managed to keep the racists corralled into their own little playpen while the adults had quality discussion.

Re:No Free Speech

[dugancent]

Then you haven't been to reddit. What you are asking for has NEVER been the way that site works.

Re:No Free Speech

[AmiMoJo]

To whoever modded the parent -1 Troll: the moderation system is not your personal disagree button. If you disagree, post. Make your case, explain your disagreement. Moderation is supposed to be factual, and the parent is clearly not a troll.

Don't ruin Slashdot. Moderation is what makes it great, use the power responsibly.

Re:No Free Speech

[Rakarra]

When I've down-modded something for being non-factual, it's been for things that are actually non-factual and fact-checkable, as opposed to subjective statements like "Reddit has NEVER been about free speech!"

Even then, if something is factually wrong, Troll/Flamebait are inappropriate, since that wasn't the original intent. I use "overrated," especially if it was modded up, as the post is not a high enough quality to support its "high" (which might be the default) mod value.

Re:No Free Speech

[alvinrod]

Limits to moderation is what makes Slashdot great. Look at Reddit where everyone can essentially moderate at all times and it's an utter mess.

Slashdot's system works as well as it does because the site's creators realized that people will not be responsible with the system and it's far better to design a moderation system that accounts for that rather than assuming that people will be on their best behavior.

Also, plain text makes implication and inference difficult on the internet, which can lead to inappropriate moderation. If you or I were to make a sarcastic or facetious post, and someone with mod points completed missed the sarcasm, they very well may believe it's a troll or flame; or someone else makes a post that we think is off-topic only because we don't get the reference.

That's why the only reasonable way is to browse at -1 and just accept that we'll have to scroll past a few comments that aren't worth reading.

For an alternative

[Yosho]

If you're interested in a Reddit-like site that won't arbitrarily close your subreddit and shadowban you because they don't like what you're talking about, voat.co is shaping up pretty nicely.

Re:For an alternative

[ScentCone]

What don't you get about free speech?

What YOU don't apparently get is that when we talk about "free speech," we're talking about your speech being free from government infringement. That has nothing to do with private businesses and gathering places. They have the freedom to assemble and conduct themselves as they see fit, without you telling them that they must support, for example, rape/race/kiddie forums, just because you think they should. That's the whole point. If YOU think that's the sign of freedom, YOU can run your own web site where those are the things that are celebrated.

The government isn't stepping in to say that Reddit must shut down race-baiting or fat-shaming forums. That's a personal editorial decision made by the people who actually own and operate the site. That you can't make the distinction between government limits on speech and editorial decisions made by private businesses suggests that you should really stop saying anything on the subject, because you're just poisoning the well. Also, please do not vote - you're too uneducated to do it safely.

Re:For an alternative

[Archangel Michael]

The politically correct crowd will willingly ignore horrible behavior as long as the person is otherwise supportive of their cause. I point to William Jefferson Clinton (Bill) as my defacto example of someone, who had they been had an (R) after their name, would have been judged completely differently by the PC (read, liberal) crowd.

So I take the cries of the PC crowd to be largely hypocritical.

Re:For an alternative

[king neckbeard]

The First Amendment is about government infringing that right. Private censorship is still censorship, and it can potentially become as big of a threat to social progress as speech repressed by the government. For example. lots of social issues have been avoided in mainstream media because of corporate/political incentives to stay quiet about the subject. On the flip side, there is censorship that most would find totally acceptable. I'm quite fine with not seeing the genitals of a man who was streaking through a stadium. But that's still censorship, and we need to acknowledge that, and consider it as such.

Re:For an alternative

[mccrew]

it always makes me laugh when some chucklehead tries to defend censorship and says censorship isn't taking place since the government is not the actor.

It always makes me laugh when some chucklehead misinterprets his freedom of speech as a requirement for someone else to provide him a soapbox.

Re:For an alternative

[AmiMoJo]

Advertisers won't want to go near a site where their ads could potentially end up on /rFatPeopleHate or next to stolen nude photos of a 16 year old gymnast. By pushing those guys over to Voat, Reddit has not only made itself advertiser friendly but also managed to poison Voat's potential ad revenue in the process. Voat may not care for now, but one day they will need to make money, at which point they will have to offload those users on to the next sucker.

Re:For an alternative

[king neckbeard]

No, censorship is when something is censored. Government censorship is when the government censors something. Someone might even self-censor to avoid offending others, even out of pure politeness. That's what the word means. You do touch on one reason why we consider non-government censorship to be much less of a concern: competition. If one channel won't air something, another might not. Generally speaking, we don't have as many options regarding our government, so we take government censorship much more seriously.

Re:For an alternative

[penguinoid]

it always makes me laugh when some chucklehead tries to defend censorship and says censorship isn't taking place since the government is not the actor.

It always makes me laugh when some chucklehead misinterprets his freedom of speech as a requirement for someone else to provide him a soapbox.

It always makes me laugh when some chucklehead misinterprets censorship as the act or practice of controlling or suppressing the behaviour of others, usually on moral grounds

Re:For an alternative

[tompaulco]

I'm quite fine with not seeing the genitals of a man who was streaking through a stadium. But that's still censorship, and we need to acknowledge that, and consider it as such.

No, that's not censorship.

Yes, that is censorship. Censorship is a big boy and is capable of existing without the word government in its definition.
Non-government entities can feel free to censor all they want. But we don't have to change the definition of the word just because some people can't understand the concept that censorship is not always illegal or even always a bad thing.

Re:For an alternative

[Trailer Trash]

The politically correct crowd will willingly ignore horrible behavior as long as the person is otherwise supportive of their cause. I point to William Jefferson Clinton (Bill) as my defacto example of someone, who had they been had an (R) after their name, would have been judged completely differently by the PC (read, liberal) crowd.

So I take the cries of the PC crowd to be largely hypocritical.

In what sense?

I assume you're referring to his affair, I'd say the reaction seems mild because a) affairs are tough for the family and a personal indictment but not really a public policy issue and are generally ignored, b) Clinton never presented himself as an example of a perfect family man so it wasn't very hypocritical, c) the reaction of the Republicans was completely over the top.

I don't deny that the PC crowd can be hypocritical but I don't think they're moreso than any other group.

His "affair"? No, his multiple affairs, his predatory sexual assaults on subordinates, and his perjuring himself in a lawsuit (while also suborning perjury through witness coaching) were the issues that the liberals overlook and continue to try to obfuscate (as you've done above). Had a Republican done even half of that we would still be reading about it in the press.

Obligations

[mwvdlee]

"we don't have any obligation to support them."

Nor do the redditors have any obligation to keep visiting the site.

This isn't about obligations, it's about ethics.

Re:Obligations

[AmiMoJo]

If it's about ethics then I don't see a problem with no supporting /rFatPeopleHate. It's not like they are being silenced, Reddit just declined to offer them a free platform for their content, following their own ethical code.

There is a difference between defending someone's right to say what they like, and actually setting up a soapbox for them. There are people I'd never help spread their message, but I wouldn't want the government to ban them from saying it either. Freedom of speech does not imply an obligation to facilitate other's speech, or listen to it.

Re:Obligations

[jittles]

If it's about ethics then I don't see a problem with no supporting /rFatPeopleHate. It's not like they are being silenced, Reddit just declined to offer them a free platform for their content, following their own ethical code.

There is a difference between defending someone's right to say what they like, and actually setting up a soapbox for them. There are people I'd never help spread their message, but I wouldn't want the government to ban them from saying it either. Freedom of speech does not imply an obligation to facilitate other's speech, or listen to it.

Very well said. "Free Speech" means the GOVERNMENT can't make certain speech illegal, or ban books, or silence dissent (even though all those things do happen, even China enshrines free speech in their constitution). It DOES NOT mean I have to support you, or help you disseminate that speech.

(Still with me... you won't be in a moment)

It's the same reason a Jewish printer can turn away business from a pro-Palestinian group, and the same reason a Christian baker can^H^H^H should be able to refuse to make a gay wedding cake.

Right. Or a KKK member baker from making a black person's wedding cake. Or for a eugenics supporter to not serve a handicapped person. And the list goes on and on. There's no reason to protect any of those people from discrimination. It's not like there has been a history of any of these groups of people being oppressed, or anything like that... oh wait.

How about adult subreddits?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about adult subreddits? Fetishist subreddits? Political subreddits that you might find offensive, such as Men's Rights? Religious subreddits that you probably find offensive, like Scientology? Do we ban vaccine deniers and conspiracy theorists? People that talk about piracy?

In Reddit's quest to become mainstream, it has lost something.

Hmmm Huffman

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/02/reddit-co-founder-alexis-ohanians-rosy-outlook-on-the-future-of-politics/3/

Speaking of the founding fathers, I ask him what he thinks they would have thought of Reddit.

"A bastion of free speech on the World Wide Web? I bet they would like it," he replies. It's the digital form of political pamplets.

A more complete summary of the situation

[vivaoporto]

A more complete summary of the situation below, based on a rejected submission of the same story.

Reddit policy to be updated, CEO says site was not created "to be a bastion of free speech"

After a string of dramatic events like the removal of the Fappening and FatPeopleHate subreddits, the dismissal of Victoria Taylor and the subsequent AMAgeddon culminating in the resignation of the former CEO Ellen Pao, the recently returned Reddit CEO and site founder Steve Huffman announces that a comprehensive Content Policy and the tools to enforce it are currently in development motivated in part by the media and internal repercussion of "the more offensive and obscene content" on their platform.

Mentioning without specifying some communities "whose purpose is reprehensible" and disclaiming that they "don't have any obligation to support them" the CEO announces an AMA (Ask me Anything) next Thursday 1pm where they "as a community need to decide together what our values are".

The CEO states that "Neither Alexis nor I created reddit to be a bastion of free speech, but rather as a place where open and honest discussion can happen.".

In a top comment in the announcement a site user refutes this claim point to a Forbes article from 2012 where Ohanians, answering a question of what the founding fathers would think of Reddit, replies: "A bastion of free speech on the World Wide Web? I bet they would like itâ. Alexis himself, in a Google Plus post from 2012 (archived version), says that he is "really, really proud of these quotes".

Re:A more complete summary of the situation

[fwarren]

"as a community need to decide together what our values are".

I am pretty sure that is the same kind of "community" that Mark Shuttleworth had. We vote on everything and we all have a voice. Till he moves the window controls from the top right hand side (windows style) to the top left hand side (mac os style). The community voted to move them back. At which point Mark said he listens to community input but ultimately it is his decision.

The board of directors at Reddit have decided what their values are, and the new CEO has agreed with them to get the job. Now they will do an AMA where they put forth as many of their values as possible in such a way that it looks like the community came up with them. The remaining values they will Mark Shuttleworthed on the community.

Thank you for playing.

Re:Cue the assholes ...

[Merk42]

The problem is that the definition of "punks, assholes, douchebags and morons" can change.

Re:MOAH POPCORN

[Anonymous Coward]

So... a virtual lynchmob went after Pao because they decided she must be an "SJW" because she once sued a former employer for sexual harassment.

Not really, no, it was the endless wave of mass media news articles about how she was tackling misogyny in Silicon Valley and standing up to those patriarchal neckbeards, a wave she was all too happy to ride, that did that.

They interpreted a closure of a subreddit that was harassing people in real life as being content based, and by Pao, because they assumed that was what a straw-SJW would do.

What appeared to be a hardline feminist was put in charge, next thing you know subreddits are being shut down and people are getting fired. Of course members were getting agitated.

And it turns out that Pao was supporting them all along - that is, arguing against a board that did actively want to remove the more offensive subreddits, and not actually the person who pushed out the fired employee.

We only have one person's word for that.

I'm seeing a hell of a lot of people who:

1. Label someone who says something that makes them slightly uncomfortable an "SJW".

2. Assume that because their victim is an SJW (because they labelled them one), they must be a straw-SJW

3. Ascribing positions and acts to their victims, misinterpreting the words they say, and creating the most absurd conspiracy theories about their victims, simply because that's what a straw-SJW would do.

SJWs hate it when their own tactics are turned back on them.

Free speech has no meaning

[waspleg]

until you defend someone else's right to say something you disagree with. As for the pictures, if they're real, then that's already illegal and I have no doubt a dozen TLAs are already watching.

Having an outlet in text for these kinds of things is far better than having none and then having these people act it out for real in their areas. It can also give people a head's up since some of these people post their manifesto before they act out.

Life is full of unpleasant things. Making it illegal to talk about them does not make them go away; it just allows them to grow in the dark.

Re:Free speech has no meaning

[meta-monkey]

The difference is that at its founding free speech was one of the core values of the site. Here's a place where you can go, and say whatever you want. And people can discuss things openly. And who knows, maybe seeing some other opinions will change some minds. It does happen.

But now that it's popular, they want to change it, and pretty much entirely to be advertiser friendly. It has nothing to do with responding to cries of offense and oppression from the user base. There are no such cries. Brigading is already banned, and people saying nasty things in one subreddit doesn't impact anyone in another subreddit. Don't like /r/CoonTown? Don't go there. I don't.

But I don't want to see /r/CoonTown banned, either. I want them to stay there, and say the stupid shit they want to say to each other. And when I'm talking with someone and I check their profile and see they're subscribed to /r/CoonTown, I know I'm dealing with a shitbag. It's useful information.

So, yes, I'd protest the shutting down of /r/CoonTown, because on a platform where everybody gets a soapbox, they should have theirs, too. AniMoJo, I disagree with 90% of your posts, but I'd protest if /. banned your overly-sensitive, trigger warning needing ass, too.

Reddit is a Business with Business Needs

[eepok]

I hate the idea of major sites like Reddit, Fark, etc. giving up what made them popular: being a sanctuary for people to communicate things as they see fit. But I also accept that once an online community becomes sufficiently large, they will need to:

(1) Bring in revenue to support the people maintaining the site and to pay for the hardware/bandwidth required to actually have a site to support.
(2) Those who provide revenue will impose requirements upon the site that will erode what previously defined the community.
(3) When a community gets sufficiently large, they attract people who weren't part of the original concept and they will demand to be catered to. This will require further erosion of the community's core principles to facilitate because, since revenue's needed, those managing the community must make everyone feel welcomed.
(4) Be ready for lawsuits from people who do not accept the original principles, but want to be part of the community regardless.

This happens with ALL communities and this looks to be Reddit's semi-collapse. Reddit won't die-- not by a long shot. But many will leave and what made Reddit most distinctive from other sites will be watered down. That's called death by success.