Slashdot Mirror


Reddit Conducts Wide-Ranging Purge of Offensive Subreddits (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Wednesday, [Reddit] announced a new policy clarifying its rules against content that incites violence. "We will take action against any content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of people," Reddit administrator landoflobsters wrote. Promoting harm to animals is also against the rules. Within minutes, moderators started to ban a long list of controversial subreddits, including /r/Nazi, /r/DylannRoofInnocent, /r/SexWithDogs, /r/WhitesAreCriminals, and /r/PicsOfDeadKids. The bounds of propriety remain fairly wide at Reddit, however. Commenters pointed out that /r/WatchPeopleDie -- which is exactly what it sounds like -- is still around. Landoflobsters said that site administrators have "no plans to remove it for now." The self-explanatory -- and horrifying -- /r/CuteFemaleCorpses is also still active. Evidently, merely depicting violence is fine as long as people in a subreddit don't glorify violence. In practice, of course, the line between these things is pretty thin. A subreddit devoted to merely discussing violent acts is naturally going to attract people who like to promote violent acts -- especially after bans of related subreddits where those people previously hung out. Reddit's new policy seems like the basis for an endless game of Whac-A-Mole as the Internet's creeps search for new places to exchange disturbing content.

30 of 330 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Good bye, old friend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I hope the relevant authorities have been using such filth as a honeypot and keep an eye on some of the people that post and/or consume that shit. Should get their heads examined.

  2. Re:Good bye, old friend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If that's the bar, then when do we hold the eulogy for Slashdot? (Or did I miss it 10 years ago?)

  3. Re:Good bye, old friend... by BitterOak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hope the relevant authorities have been using such filth as a honeypot and keep an eye on some of the people that post and/or consume that shit. Should get their heads examined.

    Precisely who are the "relevant authorities" whose job it is to police what people say or read and what do they do if somebody says or reads something they're not supposed to?

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  4. Re:Good by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you want reddit to be a platform for hate you should have no issue with any social media being a platform for ISIS or literal nazis

    I draw the line at figurative nazis.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  5. More Like Narrow-Banded by TrancePhreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They banned some small subs, but left out bigger ones like communism, anarchy, hittablefaces, antifa, etc

    --

    -]Phreak Out[-
    1. Re:More Like Narrow-Banded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And /r/hillaryclinton that calls for the castration and murder of all Bernie Bros.

      I live in Seattle, and own a couple of Bernie shirts so I've run into their kind before.

  6. Re:Good bye, old friend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think your view of the world is a tad bit too pessimistic if you think the only reason Reddit is able to stay afloat is because Nazis and people having sex with dogs.

  7. Re:Good bye, old friend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It has been clear for the last year or two they are trying to clean themselves up to be sold to someone. They just are not sure who. They had a pretty sweet system going on. They have been caught a couple of times manipulating the system. Their advertisers HAVE to be saying 'if they can manipulate some stuff down then they can manipulate other stuff up'.

    When you build a 'free speech' platform do not be surprised when every wacko shows up and states whatever dribbles out of their mouths.

    I vote on Verizon buying them. They seem to be buying every other dying internet company out there.

  8. Oh boo-hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OMG a business is doing what they want with their own platform as is there legal right! Cue the masses of idiots to defend the 1st Amendment where it doesn't apply.

    1. Re:Oh boo-hoo! by Calydor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure it's their legal right. It's just that sites like Facebook and Reddit are the new town square. You know, the place the 1st Amendment said - between the lines - you could go to say what you wanted.

      Censorship got outsourced to the companies.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:Oh boo-hoo! by tinkerton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So the way to get rid of the 1st amendment is to privatize.

    3. Re:Oh boo-hoo! by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A cookie for being insightful (out of mod points). I’m a believer in free markets, but I also believe that markets need some regulation to keep them functional, especially when it comes to mega corporations and monopolies or oligopolies. In this case I’d be in favour of a rule that says: if you’re one of the top 3 social media companies, then you are now a common carrier (or something like it) subject to additional rules, one of them governing what you can and cannot censor. In other words: free speech rules are applied and enforced on the largest public “town squares”.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:Oh boo-hoo! by tehcyder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's just that sites like Facebook and Reddit are the new town square.

      No, they're not. Simple as that.

      If you write to (say) the Catholic Herald newspaper, you can't seriously complain when they don't publish your "the Pope is a Paedophile and the Antichrist" cartoon. Similarly, they are under no obligation to accept adverts from condom manufacturers.

      You don't have to read the Catholic Herald, and you don't have to visit Facebook or Reddit. It's not some Stalinist state controlled monopoly.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:Oh boo-hoo! by Voyager529 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's just that sites like Facebook and Reddit are the new town square.

      No, they're not. Simple as that.

      That's sort of the difficult question at hand. Do we, as a society, have a "Town Square" anymore? A location where everyone goes to participate in a marketplace of ideas? If it's not Facebook or Reddit, then where is that place? Freedom of speech to state the 'approved' set of ideas is almost as useless as freedom of speech limited to the middle of the desert in Nevada - technically accurate, but practically useless. The implication that Freedom of Speech was both the very first entry in the Bill of Rights, and that it was written under the auspices that it can only meaningfully be exercised in isolation, frankly doesn't make sense. Freedom of speech does imply meaningful access to an audience of some kind. Now yes, that audience must also have the readily-available freedom to not-listen and I don't think the Bill of Rights guaranteed a particular or captive audience, but an audience, at some level, there must be.

      If Facebook and Reddit don't want to provide a true marketplace of ideas, that's kinda their right, but the question is "should it be?". These companies have plenty of regulations. Their buildings must have fire exits, they can't lie on their SCO filings, and they can't physically beat their employees until morale improves. Adding a requirement to not-stifle the first amendment would just be another requirement.

      The alternative is the realization that we do need a town square, where nazis and antifa alike can make their views heard on equal footing. Usenet used to fill this job well, and I'd argue that it's still about the best system for this (or at least the best model for one), but it suffers from the dark side of the network effect. I'd also be in favor of some sort of government hosted public forum system, but even ignoring the funding and spam issues, it becomes a potential point-of-failure if it is ever manipulated by the government maliciously, and would lack accountability to do so.

      So, if the government is not going to provide a digital town square, and private industry can't either, then someone is going to have to pay for it, either through donations or ads, which brings us, I guess, to the NPR model...but NPR is far from a 'marketplace of ideas' as I have yet to hear anything on my local NPR stations that vaguely resembled a conservative point of view - or, for that matter, something that wasn't political at some level, unless you count 'fundraiser season'.

      The final option is that we have no town square - Freedom of Speech, but nowhere to meaningfully exercise it. I don't think that's something worth fighting for.

      If you write to (say) the Catholic Herald newspaper, you can't seriously complain when they don't publish your "the Pope is a Paedophile and the Antichrist" cartoon. Similarly, they are under no obligation to accept adverts from condom manufacturers.

      You don't have to read the Catholic Herald, and you don't have to visit Facebook or Reddit. It's not some Stalinist state controlled monopoly.

      First off, the Catholic Herald does not have nearly the same userbase as Reddit. Second, the Catholic Herald is not understood to be a publication whose primary content is user-submitted. On the contrary, it is a topical periodical with editors and writers intended for a specific audience. Anyone reading it will assume it has gone through an editor who made choices as to what was deemed the most desirable content to distribute, a far cry from the community-driven aspects which are a primary feature of both Reddit and Facebook. Nobody would expect the Catholic Herald to publish an article called "the pope is a pedophile", and arguably /r/catholic probably wouldn't either as a function of the individual moderators on that subreddit....but are we ultimately arguing that there should be nowhere on Reddit that such an article *could* be posted? I'm not arguing for the front page, nor am I arguing for /r/sldkgfnw (the equivalent of the Nevada desert), but I am arguing that there does need to be a place for it.

  9. Now it's Twitter's turn by Gussington · · Score: 2, Insightful

    *cough* #realDonaldTrump *cough*

  10. Re:Good bye, old friend... by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Reddit is different. It is like a rocky coastline full of little tidal pools where tiny fish pretend they are giant sharks. Their tidal pool is the entire world, full of empty threads with little or no comments. Some of the tidal pools are not bad to dip into to get some specialist info out of but making your life a tidal pool, all the fish swimming in the same direction, in the same circle, really rather pointless, much like Reddit has become in the age of for profit censorship rather than leaving it to the courts and the justice system (yeah I know Reddit managements ego are way above the justice system and the law for the lessor people than Reddit censor). Reddit seems to believe the censoring more people and kicking them off will result in more end users because, I just don't know, they think people like to be censored and attacked randomly by the lamest of SJWs of which ever brand (hitler's brown shirts were SJWs, the Klu Klux Klan are SJWs, social justice activists good - social justice warriors really fucking bad, why can you not understand that the word war and social justice are mutually opposing, you can not win a war, you only lose less than the other guy).

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  11. Reddit's biggest problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Reddit's biggest problem is lack of real moderation system.

    Go pick a random programming thread, and you'll find people having meaningful conversations without having the courtesy to upvote eachother. When I find those types of discussions, I usually just upvote everyone in the thread and silently move on to lurk in another thread. They were all contributing, but everyone's trying so hard to be right that they won't give anyone else credit for contributing, even when they're both half right and half wrong, or when they're clearly just stating a valid but unpopular opinion. This is especially bad in r/cpp lately for some reason.

    Next, go pick a random frontpage discussion and see people getting thousands of upvotes for literally repeating the parent comment verbatim. Remember the infamous disco ball thread? That still happens every day to a lesser extent.

    p.s. I stopped posting publicly on reddit because helping teach someone occasionally results in a downvote brigade for the entire thread. Instead, I just PM help to newbies that posted enough to let me know they're actually trying to learn and not just begging for homework help.

  12. Re:Good by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Freedom of speech has pretty simple limits. It shouldn't be used to attack one of the classic unalienables. In other words, one shouldn't be allowed to promote violence, murder, slavery, unending harassment, or directly create chaos by trying to incite panic. So I won't suggest you shut your whore mouth. I do suggest you have a whore mouth though.

  13. Re:Good bye, old friend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    War is peace.
    Freedom is slavery.
    Ignorance is strength.
    Limited speech is free.

  14. Re:Good bye, old friend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope the relevant authorities have been using such filth as a honeypot and keep an eye on some of the people that post and/or consume that shit. Should get their heads examined.

    Precisely who are the "relevant authorities" whose job it is to police what people say or read and what do they do if somebody says or reads something they're not supposed to?

    Police, FBI, Etc. If someone makes a death threat verbally in a mall, the idea is for them to find out, catch the perpetrator physically, and send them through the courts. If someone makes a death threat via text post on a forum, same basic shit should happen. It's not actually more complicated than that. Though there are some dynamics of policing that become more apparent after you've watched all 5 seasons of HBO's 'The Wire'. Fiction, of course, but one wonders about how much of policing reality inspired that fiction. Be forewarned, you may encounter no small amount of offensive 'lockerroom talk'.

  15. Re:Good bye, old friend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Policing infers they restrict or control what people say. Reading what is in plain sight to look for suspicious characters is no worse than sitting on a corner watching a group of masked men.

  16. Re:Good bye, old friend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    +2 Insightful? Hardly.

    There are sites years older (fark.com comes to mind) that threw out their dumpster fire residents, and those people just take up residence somewhere else, so 4chan is the path of least resistance unless you're into furries or child porn, and those creeps go to 8ch.

    Just like a every other social media network before it, Livejournal threw off it's creeps, so people migrated. DeviantArt threw out its's creeps, and they migrated. 4chan threw out it's creeps, and they migrated. reddit is throwing out it's creeps, and they migrate.

    Slashdot hasn't done anything to throw out it's creeps, and that's largely because the subject material is high-level nerd interest moderated by humans, rather than the unmoderated cesspool that *chan sites are. reddit is actually moderated rather well as long as you're sticking to fandom and local communities. Where reddit falls apart is in attracting advertisers to pay for it's hosting cost. So like Youtube/Google (who has a very shitty ad policy in general (they will stop showing ads if you show a censored cartoon butt) is the one calling the shots in advertising.

  17. Re:Good bye, old friend... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For the most part. But things than might be considered some kind of threat or indicate an illegal action might occur

    If the police have enough time to investigate every post that has a 0.000001% chance of being a real threat, then we have way, way too many police.

    or libal...

    Libel is a civil matter, and the police have no business getting involved in it.

  18. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sure your definition of "platform for hate" is "somebody said something I disagree with". That seems to be the standard for crybaby millenials who can't figure out why they're not allowed to make anything they don't like go away.

  19. Re:Good bye, old friend... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have unrealistic expectations of what a business will do to protect free speech. On the individual level it's likely that someone high up in the organization will decide they don't want to host that stuff, like someone high up at Cloudflare decided they didn't want to provide services to Nazi sites. On a corporate level they can't exist on their own, they need ad revenue, they need sales revenue, they need hosting and peering.

    And the real kicker (for you) is that Reddit's purges work. They move most of the asshats over to the Voat cesspit and the majority of Reddit users find that there is less trolling and abuse on the 99.99% of boards that are not affected.

    https://arstechnica.co.uk/scie...

    What you need is some billionaire to run a free speech site at a loss. But even then you won't be happy, because it will be like Gab or 8chan - small, few people pay any attention to it and it quickly becomes an echo chamber for extremists rather than a paradise of reasoned debate.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  20. two thoughts: by buddyglass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reddit's new policy seems like the basis for an endless game of Whac-A-Mole as the Internet's creeps search for new places to exchange disturbing content.

    1. The folks interested in these things will definitely find other places to congregate, but here's the key: possibly not at reddit. Which is reddit's goal.

    2. In terms of it being Whac-a-Mole, it shouldn't be too hard if they implement a user-based reporting / flagging system. Let your users flag suspect subreddits, then every day a reddit employee looks at the top few "most redported" and determines if they meet the criteria for removal. Users who abuse the flagging system lose the ability to flag.

  21. Re:Good by Iamthecheese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Freedom of speech has pretty simple limits

    No. As soon as you limit freedom of speech to things you like (and yes your proposal damn well is that) you've severely crippled it. "hate speech" starts to obtain the definition of disagreeing with the status quo. "harassment" starts to obtain the definition of vigorous debate. I've seen those examples and more. The question at hand is who decides what hate speech and harassment are. When a certain disliked group on Twitter started to engage those posting a certain hashtag and winning them over that's when lively debate via twitter started to be called harassment. When "hate speech" became illegal that's when opponents of certain points of view defined them as hate speech. When the question of which speech is hateful is politicized the law against it becomes a tool for oppressing certain points of view, and that is unacceptable.

    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. -H. L. Mencken

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  22. Re:Good bye, old friend... by XXongo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Conservatives want less government. Interesting that liberals think that we want government control of anything.

    Conservatives claim to want less government, but in fact whenever they have power they expand the powers of government.

    (I think you may be confusing conservatives with libertarians, who would prefer a corporate dictatorship with no government oversight.)

  23. the elephant in the room by XXongo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    libertarians, who would prefer a corporate dictatorship with no government oversight.

    Nice Strawman. It is exactly wrong too.

    Unfortunately, it's not a strawman. It is the elephant in the room for libertarian philosophy. Governments limit corporate power. Without governments, there would be no limits on corporate power. Once corporations own everything that can be owned, this is dictatorship. Game over: corporations own everything, you do what they tell you.

    Remember who grants Corporate Charters? It isn't the Corporation, it is the Government.

    Exactly. Governments are the limit on corporate power

    As a Libertarian, I have a simple solution to Corporate malfeasance, the Corporate Death Penalty.

    Show me one citation -- just one single citation-- to a libertarian source suggesting that "the corporate death penalty" is something that is considered a good idea anywhere in libertarian philosophy.

    But: a citation to somebody other that yourself.

  24. Re:Good bye, old friend... by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Either way, libertarians would be opposed.

    Well, that's nice that they would be opposed,shame they wouldn't be able to do jack shit about it.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!