Slashdot Mirror


Reddit Updates Content Policy, Bans More Subreddits

AmiMoJo writes: Reddit's new CEO, Steve Huffman, announced new a content policy and the banning of a small number of subreddits today. Additionally, some subreddits will be "quarantined", so users can't see their content unless they explicitly opt in. "Our most important policy over the last ten years has been to allow just about anything so long as it does not prevent others from enjoying Reddit for what it is: the best place online to have truly authentic conversations.I believe these policies strike the right balance." The names of the nixed subreddits make clear that they're not exactly neighbors exchanging pleasantries.

10 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. Voat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Do what every other exile from Reddit has been doing, move on over to voat. It's a lot more reliable now. Every day there's more content. And the users aren't shitty (mostly)!

  2. Top voted post of that thread, interesting point by vivaoporto · · Score: 5, Informative
    The top voted comments on that thread, an interesting enough point that is not being dealt with in these last rounds of purges. Reposted here without changes for benefit of the Slashdot audience.

    Last week an SRS user went nearly four years into my history and posted this in /r/ShitRedditSays:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/3fkp3m/010212_petition_to_ban_rrapingwomen_sorry_cant/

    Taken with zero context, and without considering this happened in the midst of Reddit banning a few subs and /u/violentacrez getting doxxed, SRS users decided that I was tolerant of rape, or beating women, that I was lazy, a shit-poster, pandering to my "audience", suggested SRS users go to Amazon to see what a piece of shit I was, that I thought "rape" was "freedom of speech", and that I was objectively wrong and thought "freedom of speech" was moderating a website.

    They hadn't bothered to read the rest of my comments, where I said "If this were MY company and these subreddits were on MY board, I'd delete them in a heartbeat, because I find them personally offensive."

    I was banned from SRS years ago (not for commenting, just because one of the mods thought I should be -- that's their prerogative) so I messaged the SRS admins and asked for a chance to respond, considering this post was #1 in SRS.

    http://imgur.com/Z8EJh1c

    As you can see, the only response was "ROFL".

    /r/Fatpeoplehate was created to mock people based on a subjective perception.

    /r/Coontown was created to mock people based on a subjective perception.

    /r/Shitredditsays was created to mock people based on a subjective perception.

    This is their stated purpose:

    "Have you recently read an upvoted Reddit comment that was bigoted, creepy, misogynistic, transphobic, racist, homophobic, or just reeking of unexamined, toxic privilege? Of course you have! Post it here."

    They exist to mock and harass Reddit users.

    we are banning a handful of communities that exist solely to annoy other redditors, prevent us from improving Reddit, and generally make Reddit worse for everyone else.

    Your words.

    Please explain to me how holding other people up to ridicule without even allowing them to respond is good for reddit, encourages participation, and makes Reddit a safe place to express our opinions and ALSO differs from the subs you've banned.

    EDIT: And this comment was already linked in SRS:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/3fx49i/meta_spezs_new_content_policy_unveiled_ctown_and/ctsvdrb?context=3

    mfw /u/WarLizard[1] pulls the "WHAT ABOUT SRS" card after being linked here. He regularly contributes to /r/KotakuInAction [2], not sure why he feels like he'd be welcome here at all. He's also complaining about the existence of SRS, so yeah right there he'd be banned. Oh no, a sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic post was made and got linked here. WOULD ANYONE THINK OF THE RACIST'S FEELINGS?

    This is a perfect example.

    I have posted in KiA, and it has been fascinating to talk with the people there. Much like it has been fascinating to talk to the people in GamerGhazi.

    But without context, someone might assume that because I've posted or commented there that I'm racist, mi

  3. Re:Top voted post of that thread, interesting poin by vivaoporto · · Score: 5, Informative

    /r/Fatpeoplehate being banned for harassment of individual redditors while /r/ShitRedditSays/ not being banned while their stated purpose is harassment of individual redditors.

  4. Re:Top voted post of that thread, interesting poin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Essentially, the commenter was complaining about a double-standard. Why are communities focused on hate for a group removed when other communities that focus on brigading (actively downvoting comments in a thread on a different community) and attacking people for their views. The OP posted a comment 4 years ago about r/rapingwomen and r/beatingwomen and how they should not be banned. This was in the context of reddit standing for freedom of speech. His logic was "if you want a truly free reddit, you can't ban communities like these, despite how terrible they may be." Someone dug up his comment, reposted it in ShitRedditSays, and people started attacking him from all angles - calling him a rapist, etc. He's feeling like reddit is picking and choosing which "harassing" subreddits are ok, and which aren't.

  5. Re:Maybe a reddit user can provide more insight by tapspace · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've spoken with reddit users and have heard accusations that shadow bans are being abused. What's involved in shadow banning someone?

    A shadow ban is a ban that is difficult for a bot to figure out (in theory, but it doesn't seem difficult to me). The user cannot tell the difference when logged in. However, their content is not being shown to anyone else. It should be as easy as clicking a permalink to one of your comments, then logging out and viewing the same permalink. If the comment is there when logged out, you are not shadow banned. I believe you can be shadow banned on both a subreddit and sitewide basis.

    I have one non-throwaway reddit account, and I keep it away from the front page or anything controversial. For front paging, I used to use throwaways. Nowadays, I pretty much try to avoid reddit. But, yes in the past, shadow bans seemed to be quite zealously applied. Sure, I've said some controversial and even borderline trolling things. You can basically get shadow banned from a subreddit for offending a moderator. In my experience, shadow banning happens usually because you merely expressed an opinion that diverges from the normative or expected normative position of userbase at reddit, the so-called hivemind. It's permanent. That account is effectively toast.

    Are people being shadow banned for being involved in unpopular sub-reddits?

    That I do not know. Maybe someone should do some experiments.

  6. Re:Top voted post of that thread, interesting poin by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Informative

    SRS (/r/shitredditsays) is a subreddit (forum) in which users post links to comments in other subreddits they find "offensive." The other users then follow that link to exact bloody revenge. And I mean bloody. They do not just "brigade" (which is also against the rules), downvoting en mass and posting insults. They go through somebody's post history and downvote everything they've ever said. They go farther still, "doxxing" people, breaking their pseudo-anonymity by going through their post history to try to uncover their real identity. Then they go further still, harassing that person in real life, and contacting their employer and trying to get them fired for opinions they expressed on the internet. It is the definition of harassment, in violation of the terms of the service of reddit and common human decency. Yet, SRS is never disciplined, never banned.

    And in case you're wondering "well maybe these people deserve it!" No. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It's not like they're uncovering child abusers or something. They take anything that even maybe hints of "privilege" or insensitivity and spin horror stories out of whole cloth. In Warlizard's case (the guy who wrote the comment the GP reposted), he, talking about censorship, said that if reddit stands for "free speech" as they claim to, then no they shouldn't ban offensive subreddits like /r/rapingwomen. He goes on to say that if he had a private forum that he hosted, and someone made a subforum for that topic, he would ban it in a heartbeat because it's horrific and offensive. However, SRS took the first part of that and ran with it, called him a "rapist," followed him around, harassing him, and leaving nasty reviews on Amazon of the books he's authored.

    They do this to lots of people. They want to be Social Justice Batman, but they're kind of like Batman if he were mentally retarded and high on crystal meth, programmed to punch anybody who utters certain words, regardless of context.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  7. Re:Hmmm. by nanoflower · · Score: 4, Informative

    The rules are that anything that causes Reddit headaches or additional work is subject to be banned, or so the CEO has said in his latest comments on this round of quarantining/banning. Though their new policy doesn't exactly make it clear that's the case. So anything they don't like or that makes them work is subject to being removed from the site.

  8. Re:Obviously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://dictionary.reference.co...

    1. the act or practice of censoring.
    2. the office or power of a censor.
    3. the time during which a censor holds office.
    4. the inhibiting and distorting activity of the Freudian censor

    http://dictionary.reference.co...

    1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
    2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
    3. an adverse critic; faultfinder.
    4. (in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.
    5. (in early Freudian dream theory) the force that represses ideas, impulses, and feelings, and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original, undisguised forms.
    verb (used with object)
    6. to examine and act upon as a censor.
    7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.

    look up what the word means

    Done. Do you have a better argument or are you just butthurt that other people are butthurt and you feel that you just have to spit as much shit into the shitstorm as them?

  9. Re:Hmmm. by ScienceofSpock · · Score: 4, Informative

    However, the thing everyone keeps missing is that some random internet site (in this case, Reddit) is owned by some other person or entity, and they can censor stuff on their own site as much as they want. If you don't like it, find another site, or buy your own.

    This can't be stated enough. Freedom of speech is a protection from government censorship, not websites, stores, or other private operations. It amazes me how many people just don't get that.

  10. Re:the partial list, for the unititiated. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Most crime is not interracial. Black person is more likely to kill another black person, and a white person is more likely to kill another white person (FBI statistics).