
Former Reddit CEO says the site's about to be purged - amyjess
http://www.engadget.com/2015/07/15/yishan-wong-reddit-purge/
======
dang
The rule of thumb for ongoing stories on HN is to have a new thread each time
there's significant new information, and (hopefully) have it point to the most
substantive source. Neither this story nor the article comes close to passing
that test, so I'm burying this post as a dupe.

~~~
amyjess
Fair enough--the article wasn't a great one, and I only chose this link
because I felt awkward submitting an actual reddit comment.

The main thing I thought was salient new information was Yishan revealing that
the board wanted to ban the hate groups but Pao was the only one holding them
back, which absolutely contradicts the earlier myth that Pao wanted to get rid
of all the hate groups.

~~~
dang
Is "revealing" the right word, though? "Alleging" seems more neutral. It
didn't look to me like there was enough information to tell whether the claim
is true or not.

(I don't personally know anything about this and am just following it from the
outside like everyone else.)

------
sharkweek
Eh... it's their playground. While I don't like the idea of what's offensive
being so subjective, there is A LOT of shit on Reddit that I would be happy to
see gone.

If Costco had a corner in every store where people were allowed to stand
around yelling racist commentary all the time, and Costco laid out a policy to
remove this from their stores, I think the majority of people would applaud
this move, thus improving business. Reddit is a business and is free to do
what it believes is best to grow. If it thinks this is the right move for
them? Great, go for it.

I actually doubt that Reddit is going to miss most of these people when they
inevitably migrate somewhere else, it's not exactly a very marketable audience
to begin with.

~~~
pavanky
I do not think people would be pissed about reddit enforcing the bans if they
did not market themselves as a bastion of free speech on the internet. It was
not just Yishan who did it. Redditors even created a new sub[1] showing all
instances where someone belonging to reddit has said or implied that they are
for free speech on the internet.

People who are pissed are angry because it looks and sounds like bait and
switch.

[1] [http://www.reddit.com/r/BoFS](http://www.reddit.com/r/BoFS)

~~~
differentView
They should ask for a refund.

~~~
maaku
Har har har. But in all seriousness Reddit become the phenomenon it is
_because_ of its users, and the many hours, days, weeks, and months they each
individually put in to build communities. To create something with value,
larger than themselves. Who's going to rufund that time investment?

~~~
fixermark
The people who invested in /r/coontown and /r/fatpeoplehate don't deserve a
refund from Reddit (or anyone else, for that matter).

Most of Reddit's users aren't going to find their subreddits of choice
interfered with.

And honestly, the people who are going to get smacked by this are well capable
of forming social connections that transcend Reddit, so they haven't lost all
of their investment. But investment of time doesn't in itself guarantee a
refund---never does, shouldn't be expected to without a contract in place.

------
blfr
In the announcement thread[1] commentators are pointing out all the places
where Reddit appeals to free speech, like their rules[2] or Alexis Ohanian
literally calling it "a bastion of free speech on the World Wide Web"[3] in
direct contradiction to spez's "Neither Alexis nor I created reddit to be a
bastion of free speech."

If you're a public figure (with archive.org if you publish anything on the
web), you need to say you changed your mind when you change your mind. This
"we were always..." thing politicians do just looks silly.

[1]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/conte...](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/content_policy_update_ama_thursday_july_16th_1pm/)

[2] [https://www.reddit.com/rules/](https://www.reddit.com/rules/)

[3]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/conte...](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/content_policy_update_ama_thursday_july_16th_1pm/ct3jr5j)

------
Animats
Anyone remember Tribe.net? They were once San Francisco's coolest social
network. Then they had a purge of sex-related topics. Read "No sex please,
we're 2.0" by Violet Blue.[1] Tribe went into a screaming dive and is down to
one or two employees.

[1] [http://www.sfgate.com/living/article/No-sex-please-we-
re-2-0...](http://www.sfgate.com/living/article/No-sex-please-we-
re-2-0-Violet-Blue-looks-at-2548355.php)

~~~
maxerickson
So how do you separate out how much they fucked up and how much they got eaten
alive by Facebook?

~~~
Animats
See [1].

[1] [http://www.quora.com/Why-did-tribe.net-%28Mark-
Pincus%29-not...](http://www.quora.com/Why-did-tribe.net-%28Mark-
Pincus%29-not-work-out)

------
nathanvanfleet
Does Yishan Wong have some sort of huge grudge with Reddit? He seems to be
constantly talking about inside/advance information about what's happening.

~~~
AlphaSite
I'd assume he's a little cheesed off with the reddit board, since they
essentially scapegoated her (I'd assume a friend) for their own decisions.

~~~
supercanuck
It appears he is just Ellen Pao's proxy at this point, so I think career wise,
he will be fine.

------
austenallred
I honestly wouldn't mind a "purge." I don't necessarily agree that drawing the
line as to what is appropriate on a website is necessarily the destruction of
people being able to express themselves. HackerNews doesn't allow racism, but
I don't feel my right to express my opinion (for the most part - the hivemind
that is caused by upvoting comments is troubling, but another issue
altogether). If people want to be blatantly racist or post teen creepershots
or organize to harass fat people, let them do that somewhere else. That
wouldn't harm my reddit experience whatsoever (nor would it harm the
experience of 99% of reddit users).

The only rational argument people can make against the "purging" (of blatantly
racist etc. subreddits) is the "slippery slope" argument, which is usually
known as a fallacious logical device. There is some merit to it, as reddit
seems to be moving the line of appropriateness, but the line just has to be
clearly drawn _somewhere_.

That said, anything Yishan Wong says at this point should be taken with a
grain of salt. When you are starting your comments with "AYYYY LMAO" and
admittedly take a pleasure in hoping to watch the company that fired you
crumble, you're not exactly a neutral or reliable source.

~~~
baddox
> The only rational argument people can make against the "purging" (of
> blatantly racist etc. subreddits) is the "slippery slope" argument, which is
> usually known as a fallacious logical device.

Not at all true. I don't like _any_ removal of content by reddit employees (as
opposed to subreddit moderators) beyond what is required by law. Whether it
leads to more and more removal in the future is irrelevant. I would like
reddit to be a place for completely free, uncensored expression.

And before the political philosophy experts pounce, I am well aware of the
argument. It's not a free speech violation when it's a private company
choosing what content to host. I'm not saying reddit doesn't have the right to
censor. I'm just saying I would prefer that they didn't.

~~~
SwellJoe
So, why are you here at HN, which has much stricter guidelines and much more
active moderators than reddit will ever have site-wide? Reddit is still vastly
more "free" than HN, and yet...the caliber of conversation here is generally
higher (not always, and the HN demographic has its blind spots), and I believe
it is precisely because it has no tolerance for fools.

In short, I don't care about racist's "right" to rant on reddit. They can go
write it on the wall of the cave they live in, for all I care.

~~~
baddox
> So, why are you here at HN

HN is roughly the equivalent of a single subreddit on reddit. I don't have a
problem with individual subreddits with strict moderation, because those
policies don't affect the policies of other subreddits. HN doesn't (as far as
I know) intend to be a host for a plethora of communities each dedicated to a
specific topic or hobby.

> Reddit is still vastly more "free" than HN, and yet...the caliber of
> conversation here is generally higher (not always, and the HN demographic
> has its blind spots), and I believe it is precisely because it has no
> tolerance for fools.

HN generally has high quality discussion, but so do many (mostly small)
subreddits.

~~~
fixermark
Are those subreddits threatened by a ban on /r/fatpeoplehate?

If not, there's very little to be concerned about.

~~~
mreiland
Perhaps a bit extreme, but the underlying point is applicable here.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not
a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not
speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one
left to speak for me.

~~~
SwellJoe
There is no talk of banning socialists, trade unionists, Jews, or any other
thing that is not a subreddit or user devoted to hate. Further, no one is
"coming for" redditors that spew hate...they're merely being shown the door.

The comparison of this quote, which is about people literally being thrown
into jail for their beliefs, to racists being told they can't post hate speech
on a privately owned website, is disingenuous, at best.

~~~
baddox
> about reddit’s policy on the more offensive and obscene content on our
> platform.

As is readily apparent, literally anything can be considered offensive and
obscene.

~~~
fixermark
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on definitions of "readily apparent"
and "literally anything."

Though the "I know it when I see it" definition of obscenity is frustratingly
open, it actually works in practice. Real human societies have implemented it
and continue to implement it. This is not something you can write a script
for, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work (I find technically-minded people
generally have a bias against things that can't even be scripted in theory...
Those things make up a lot of the world, inconveniently).

And yes, that means Redditors live in a world of ambiguity. Welcome to the
world, I guess. Such ambiguity doesn't imply that, say, /r/science or
/r/popmusic would be on the chopping block, and it'd be absurd to argue it
does.

At least, the fact that /r/coontown is on the chopping block doesn't threaten
/r/science any more than some hypothetical change in leadership in the future
that decides Reddit is more profitable without _any_ subreddits, and that can
be a good enough point to settle on.

So relax; your favorite subreddit is not under threat, unless it probably
should be. Ambiguity is the nature of real social structures, because humans
are ambiguous creatures. ;)

~~~
mreiland
I don't understand why you would claim no one who posts in /r/science would
ever be capable of producing a post, opinion, or content that could fall under
reddits new guidelines for deletiong and/or banning.

Do you believe everyone who touches /r/science cannot, or will not, touch
these other subreddits (and vice versa, the people in /r/coontown cannot post
in /r/science?).

On what do you base that belief?

~~~
fixermark
That's not my belief at all. The belief is that there's no likely scenario
where /r/science gets killed because it's a toxic wasteland of racism.
/r/coontown, in contrast, gets no such consideration; it is a toxic wasteland
of racism. And if it somehow comes to pass that /r/science's content were to
follow in coontown's footsteps, then by all means, cut /r/science out too.

Reddit's owners are moving in a direction where they've decided to take a
small stand against the worst of the worst harmful subreddits, and people seem
to be taking this as a dog-whistle that every forum is up for possible
deletion at the whim of some arbitrary, uncontrolled bogeyman tomorrow. That's
not how obscenity censorship works and it isn't how human decency works. It's
how people of a certain political bent like to pretend they work (because the
world would be easier to understand and predict if that were true), but that
belief doesn't stand the test of reality.

~~~
mreiland
Where your thinking is flawed is in the idea that major subreddits won't be
affected by reddit's stance change. Specifically, banning isn't the only way
to affect a subreddit, it's merely one of the most final.

As for your fixation on /r/coontown.

Can you remind me, wasn't there a famous person once who made a quote about
the unpopular opinions being the ones that needed defending?

There's a clear difference between what /r/fatpeoplehate was doing and
/r/coontown. You may not like that they exist, but your offense should not be
enough to get that subreddit banned.

OTOH, reddit is a private company and they can do what they want, but taking
the moral highroad in this argument from your side is silly, especially seeing
how you seem to be wanting to infringe on others' free speech because you
don't like what they use it for.

And wasn't there a famous person that had a quote pertaining to that? I think
so.

------
clavalle
I have a feeling that Reddit, with its focus on growth of the user base, is
just going to play to the lowest common denominator. As soon as it is filled
with what amounts to user curated network TV levels of content and the banal
advertising mindset that goes with it, it will become Just Another News
Aggregator and will not inspire the level of engagement it has enjoyed until
now.

Reddit doesn't have a sticky network effect. The content decays. People can
easily jump ship.

I don't understand why they are obsessed with raw 'ratings' numbers anyway.
Part of what makes their user base valuable is that they are self-segmented --
it is the small, focused communities. Also that they are used to hopping off
site then back again to re-engage. They are missing a huge opportunity, not to
merely get more people in the door, but figure out how to serve the valuable
communities that already exist there.

If they keep staring at that bone in the water and open their mouths to grab
it, they will lose the tasty morsel they could currently be enjoying.

What they really need is some people that know how to target ads effectively
to small valuable clients and some technologists with the chops to help them
make a profit from that valuable connection making. Some deep experts from
Google's Adwords team, for example. And they need to make the whole process
above board and transparent so the userbase doesn't feel like they are being
used secretly. Reddit and their commercial offerings should feel like a
partner for users, a valuable available resource, not a slimy shill machine. I
think that's possible to do but it is going to take a hell of a lot more
finesse and openness than they've shown recently.

~~~
johrn
> they will lose the tasty morsel they could currently be enjoying.

That tasty morsel of hardcore racism, rabid misogyny and all sorts of other
fun hate groups, and the people that defend them because anyone should be
allowed to say anything they want?

I don't understand why so many people think that getting rid of these groups
is going to suddenly implode all the thousands of smaller, more focused
communities that you mention.

~~~
clavalle
I don't mind if they get rid of the hate groups but you have to be careful --
hate is a very plastic term. If people feel like their self formed communities
might come under some sort of 'distaste' police, they might just pack up and
go somewhere else. Most people aren't afraid that they'll go after subreddits
that are blatantly racist, they are afraid that is just the opening salvo.
They are afraid that the whole place and discussions are going to end up being
monitored, shaped, and censored to benefit the Reddit corporate image. And
what good is a discussion board where discussions must be approved for mass
consumption or worse, shaped for mass consumption?

You might say, 'that wouldn't happen' and it probably wouldn't but the
leadership has not been very open about what they are doing and where they
draw the line so people fill the unknown with the worst case.

They need a policy of containment, not eradication except in the most
egregious circumstances or where the content is actually illegal. What they do
need is better tools to wall them off and detect brigaiding so that kind of
business, where the hate spills out, can be nipped in the bud.

~~~
johrn
I guess that might be something to worry about if it starts to happen. But I
think it's a pretty poor argument to say "well if they ban _racism_ , what's
next?"

~~~
arprocter
It's interesting to see what is announced tomorrow.

A lot of people in this thread are mentioning the default subs - how is a mod
of a sub with 8 million subscribers supposed to make sure every single thing
posted isn't 'offensive'?

~~~
clavalle
Yeah. I'd classify it as a Very Hard Problem.

------
rhema
This whole fiasco is so strange. What kind of CEO claims a "moral authority"
to do a purge and adds a trollface picture?

Also, look at the subreddits that u/spez is moderator of. For example, his
subreddit r/Cannibals has a top post:
[[https://www.reddit.com/r/Cannibals/comments/3cxp5e/to_stop_w...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cannibals/comments/3cxp5e/to_stop_world_hunger_we_must_simply_eat_all_the/)]
where a highly scored post from 3 days ago reads, "To stop world hunger we
must simply eat all the poor people." While obviously satire, it begs the
question of who decides what belongs and does not.

>We tried to let you govern yourselves and you failed.

On what metric?

~~~
dragonwriter
> What kind of CEO claims a "moral authority" to do a purge and adds a
> trollface picture?

None. A _former_ CEO claimed the _current_ CEO had the "moral authority" for
the predicted coming purge.

------
grabcocque
About time.

Reddit is a mean-spirited and self-destructive community, a fearsomely ugly
website and all run by an incompetent and blasé bunch of chancers, and yet
somehow it _still_ manages to become less than the sum of its parts.

It's probably far too late to do anything about it, mind.

~~~
AndyKelley
This comment has no content other than "I hate Reddit".

------
waterlesscloud
The reason this is a terrible mistake for Reddit is that now their next
several years of corporate narrative will be dominated by which subs should be
banned.

They won't really be able to get much else attention for anything else. When
they try, the conversation will be hijacked and diverted to "When will you ban
subreddit X?"

Once the door for this kind of thing is open this wide, it's all they're going
to be able to talk about, for years.

From a purely cold-blooded business perspective, it's a fatal move, just in a
way that may not be immediately obvious to them.

~~~
arprocter
Also look at the wack-a-mole which happened after the subs were banned the
other day - users trolled the admins by making eleventeen new versions of the
same subs

------
dataker
I'm a strong believer in freedom of speech, but I honestly don't care about
the fate of Reddit.

If they start banning content, users will leave and start their own
racist/misogynistic/xenophobic/... communities.

Reddit's community is based on certain fundamental principals and, once they
start to be violated, it's not like you can't start your own 'country'.

------
ebspelman
Reddit is a site driven by voting dynamics. It'd be unhealthy NOT to adjust
those dynamics from time to time.

------
CameronBanga
Did this just get pulled from the HN front page?

I'm not a huge fan of Reddit, but it seems like news on this whole debacle has
been pulled/silenced from HN. I know Reddit is a one of Y-Combinator's biggest
success stories, so curious if this is really happening or if I'm just
imagining it.

~~~
chc
It's called flagging. Users don't feel this article is intellectually
gratifying.

------
mcphage
> "[S]o now The Man is going to set some Rules. Admittedly, I can't say I'm
> terribly upset."

I can't say I am, either. To abuse Lincoln, "I believe this site cannot
endure, permanently half adult conversation and half hateful filth."

------
wnevets
If you find the content of a particular subreddit offensive, don't subscribe
to that subreddit? Why must admins police legal content?

~~~
johrn
Maybe admins don't want their site to be somewhere that stormfront considers
to be their biggest recruitment center. It's not like the users who subscribe
to coontown etc keep their opinions to themselves when they are using other
parts of the site.

~~~
Lawtonfogle
As with the FPH debacle, when you take down the walls, you aren't destroying
the community, you are destroying the containment.

~~~
johrn
There is no containment. There is a comfy room that the FPHers or the
stormfronters can hang out in and pat each other on the backs, and then there
are open doors to everyone else's room that they can just walk through and
spew their garbage. Removing the walls just makes them less comfortable, it
doesn't suddenly release them from a prison.

------
trose
I for one would a little sanitization of the site. There are always going to
be weirdos posting horrendous content on the internet but I'm not particularly
inclined to deal with that trash. I'd love a Reddit this is only cat pics,
interesting stories from other users, and celebrity interviews. We dont need
to make it easy for trolls to discuss their racist/ sexist/ bullshit and
harass people.

------
skizm
Onward and upward I guess. Where's the next site that is in between 4chan and
hacker news?

------
kozukumi
reddit has a lot of NSFW content. I wonder if those subs are going to go?

~~~
waterlesscloud
Not at first, but in time almost certainly.

~~~
danielweber
I'm not willing to do this from a work network, but if you search the wayback
machine [1] you can probably find when /r/nsfw disappeared following the Condé
Nast purchase; and then look around that time for a thread about reddit
management where some user complains about it disappearing.

[1] you could try reddit search if you are feeling lucky or masochistic. Or
maybe it's really good at binary date searches and I just don't know how to
use it.

------
swagv
How much angst can one waste over a old digg wannabe on its way down?

------
elektromekatron
This will probably go about as well as naked beekeeping while drunk.

------
rockdoe
Why not link to the actual statement?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/conte...](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/content_policy_update_ama_thursday_july_16th_1pm/ct3n7hc)

The tears from all the haters will be delicious.

~~~
Shivetya
the problem is, how vague is the term? The previous actions were later excused
under reasons differing from what was originally understood yet implemented
wholly unnervingly as certain favorite subs of the admins escaped actions.

Eventually everyone will want their definition played out and in this
generation of "I am offended, you must be silent" free speech is the real
loser. You do not have the right to not be offended.

