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.

Comments

the partial list, for the unititiated.

[nimbius]

among the list of banned subreddits:
/r/CoonTown, /r/WatchNiggersDie, /r/bestofcoontown, /r/koontown, /r/CoonTownMods, /r/CoonTownMeta.

not exactly sterling content that spurs thoughtful collaboration and debate. It harms the reddit brand, but id argue this is less censorship and more spam control. Reddits purpose is entertainment, social networking, and news. If you want flagrant unsubstantiated and indefensible racism, most routers still manage to handle connection requests to the servers at stormfront and about a hundred other different sites.

Re:the partial list, for the unititiated.

[DerekLyons]

Translation: It's a biased and bigoted subreddit where mental midgets 'justify' their racism.

Re:the partial list, for the unititiated.

[Anonymous Coward]

It harms the reddit brand, but id argue this is less censorship and more spam control.

I'd argue that it is censorship, and ultimately it does damage the reddit brand.

People are being racist and horrible on your internet site. Get over it. Supporting free speech means defending people's rights and ability to speak, even if it is about things you do not like, be it pornography or racism. The increasingly shill excuses that these people in sites and subreddits most of us have never heard of people are "harassing" others is simply a hysterical veneer on a coldly calculated censorship drive.

Ban these racist sites today, what comes tomorrow? I'm sure there's a subreddit for so called "interracial porn". Is that racist? Does that get banned? What about subreddits promoting interracial marraige? Same sex marraige? Gay rights? You can easily find LOTS of people who think all of those are offensive. Do they get quarantined so reddit can maintain a cleaner media image? Go the other way in the US culture wars. What about subreddits against gay marraige? Against divorce? Promoting conservative religous values in society? Again LOTS of people are offended by those. Do we quarantine those too? Subreddits covering islamic terrorism? Incidents in the West Bank? Systemd criticism?

What is the condition for quarantine here? When does free speech break down? Answer: After a 2-3 year slow burn media campaign to demonize reddit for allowing subreddits to exist which offend media owners.

Reddit started off as a free speech site. Create the forum you want. For the last few years the presence of these relatively small racist or unpolitically correct subreddits has drawn the ire of those with media influence, and reddit has been placed under gigantic social and media pressure to effectively, enforce "basic standards of decency". Hence this quarantine.

You may agree that reddit was justified in conforming to the pressure in this case. But the next group to put media pressure on the site may not be the group you agree with. Reddit has made a decisive turn away from its free speech principles, and some of those applauding now will come to regret the loss of the promise that site once offered.

Re:the partial list, for the unititiated.

[cayenne8]

The claim that black people have some kind of "privilege" where their crimes against white people are ignored (LOL) and crimes by white people against black people are sensationalized

Well, that does seem to be the trend on the national news these days. Stories of black on white crime, even some bad ones don't seem to get the publicity that white on black crime does. And, from what I understand, more whites are killed by cops annually than black are ?

1. Often it's cops doing it, and cops murdering anyone running away from them or sitting in a car is news.

I agree with this one..horrible. But horrible if a person of ANY race is killed by the cops unjustifiably. ALL lives matter.

2. Dog bites man != not news. Man bites dog == news.

Ok, this one, I'm hoping I'm reading your wrong, but this seems a VERY racist statement on your part?? Is the analogy of the role of Dog ==Blacks and Man == Whites? If so, you're saying the norm is for Blacks to kill/commit crimes on whites...which is so common place, it isn't really news?

That's the translation I'm getting from it....? If not, what did you really mean?

Re:Obviously.

[Nidi62]

If I own a restaurant or some other type of public establishment and people come in and have a discussion that is upsetting other customers I have a right to ask them to leave, correct? That is not censorship and that is exactly what Reddit is doing. They are not prohibiting people from expressing themselves, they just aren't allowed to do it on a website provided and maintained by Reddit. If they want to set up their own website they can feel free to do so.

Re:Voat

[0100010001010011]

NO. Stop going to a single site for everything.

<Back in my day> There were forums dedicated to separate topics. I didn't have to worry about someone judging my post on VWVortex by what I said on Slashdot. I kept separate usernames. Now everyone uses the same username for *everything*. And now every site has a 'facebook' login. I *DO NOT* want all of that stuff linked.

Re:Obviously.

[Anonymous Coward]

To carry your analogy further, your restaurant would have to be called "Anything Goes" and be launched on the idea that anyone can say anything and that freedom of speech is paramount - superseding all other concerns. The press interview you and have you on record saying that you're proud of the restaurant being a place that is uncensored and self-moderating (in that if people don't like the conversation at a table they are welcome to move to another), with each table out of earshot of all other tables, thus underlining how accepting of all opinions your restaurant is. Jump forward to the present and if you're surprised that patrons are upset that you're banning certain conversations on the basis that you don't like them, perhaps you shouldn't have opened this kind of restaurant in the first place.

Defending scoundrels

[claytongulick]

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

                — HL Mencken

Re:Top voted post of that thread, interesting poin

[vivaoporto]

The complaint is about the difference in the treatment of two similar problem subreddits: FPH and SRS, along with the current batch of banned ones.

The former got banned (according to the official explanation) not because of their ideas but because of the behaviour of their members (doxxing, harassing). The current batch was banned because (according to the official explanation) they "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".

SRS exhibits the same behaviour that got FPH banned (brigading, harassing) and arguably exhibits the same behaviour that was used to justify the banishment of the current batch: existing "solely to annoy other redditors".

The above posted explanation from the admin admits SRS is a problem but only touches the brigading and anti brigading measures.

It gives the impression that existing "solely to annoy other redditors" was not the real reason for banning the current batch and that "doxxing and harassing" was not the real reason for banning FPH.