
Reddit launches harassment crackdown - adrianscott
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32749408
======
Karunamon
Given Reddit's already unequal application of the site rules (some people can
shamelessly vote manipulate, others receive hellbans for merely following
links), and the propensities for specific groups to treat mild disagreement as
"harassment", this does not bode well.

It gets really blatant if you've been on the site for any length of time. I
really hope this doesn't kill the site, but it looks bad.

~~~
untog
I mean, rules are applied by the mods of each different subreddit, right? I
don't doubt some subreddits have huge problems, but IMO the majority don't,
and the site itself works just fine.

~~~
iopq
A moderator can't shadowban you. But someone criticizing Ellen Pao got a
shadowban recently, which means the actual administrators (Reddit employees)
did it. I don't know if it was for criticizing her or for something else.

~~~
A_COMPUTER
I am not a habitual Reddit user and know little about the controversy with
Pao, but I am interested in the subject of Internet site moderation so I have
been looking into what has been posted in this thread. I found this. Pao
linked to this post by a non-reddit admin recently as an example of how she
thinks shadowbanning should be done:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/35ym8t/promote_ideas_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/35ym8t/promote_ideas_protect_people/cr91z7r)

Selected quotes:

>You will never be told exactly what will earn a shadowban, because telling
you means telling the sociopaths, and then they will figure out a way to get
around it, or worse, they will file shitty, frivolous lawsuits in bad faith
for being shadowbanned while "not having done anything wrong"[...]Shadowbans
are intentionally a grey area, an unknown, a nebulous and unrestricted tool
that the administrators will use at their sole discretion in order to keep
reddit running[.]

The first thoughts that come to my mind are "this isn't compatible with a
culture of transparency" and "there has to be a better way" but I can
appreciate how hard it must be to keep a site the size of Reddit running.

~~~
DanBC
I don't know how you can be interested in Internet moderation and think that
"transparency" is anything other than a road direct to concern troll / rule-
lawyering hell.

It maybe worked for meatball wiki but they were i) small and ii) disciplined.

I doubt their approach would work anywhere else.

~~~
A_COMPUTER
Because I've done it. It is not necessary to put up with people rule-lawyering
and concern trolling just because you're very clear on why people were banned.

------
existencebox
This is a topic I'm legitimately curious about. 4chan existed in a form for a
very long time such that (aside from any stated rules) harassment was
ubiquitous (at least in /b). That being said, that same domain formed a basis
for massive swaths of the internet community and culture we see today.

In any place I've seen these sorts of gestures of "safe-ification", they seem
to serve only to 1. be ineffective; for whatever moderation you have it's
going to have edge cases and a time delay for enforcement. 2. Split the
community, create _more_ (and often more subtler, now that it has to conform
to some rulebook) harassment/drama between the split. 3. Drive away productive
parts of the community, for any variety of reasons. (for me it's a mix of
"I've seen this pattern before and don't like where it goes" and "I don't
agree that trying to dictate social standards is the proper way.")

Caveat, and I'm somewhat frustrated that I feel like I need to say this
(whether that's at myself or the fear that I'll be jumped on if I don't), I
was _VERY_ heavily bullied/harrassed for much of my childhood.

I caveat as such to try and say that I don't hold this stance from a position
of ignorance, but that if I hadn't interacted with bad actors in places that
are frankly more insulated from real life (the internet) I would have never
come to (yes, painful, but still VERY useful in hindsight) realizations about
human interaction and my role in it.

This rambled a bit, so tl;dr, Dealing with bad actors is how we learn to deal
with bad actors, which is a _critical_ life skill. This even aside from that
the strategy being applied does not have a successful history, from what I've
seen. (I'm trying to avoid the slippery slope argument, although that's kinda
implicit in my second conclusion, I'd rather hear what other people think on
this concept of growth through pain, or if it's all in my head)

~~~
digi_owl
About 2. One thing i have seen more and more as rules come into play on
various sites is baiting. In particular when the rules are automatically
enforced.

------
Vaskivo
I don't like it, but Reddit can do whatever it wants with it's platform.
Reddit is not a "free speech platform", it is whatever it wants to be at any
moment.

In Portugal we have a saying that translates to something like this: "Who is
not well/happy, should move to another place". And that's whats going to
happen. Some users will go to another platforms.

And, in the end, we'll always have the chans...

~~~
Karunamon
That is _exactly_ what it is, by their own reckoning[1]:

    
    
        Create a safe space to encourage participation.
        Embrace diversity of viewpoints.
        Allow freedom of expression.
        Be stewards, not dictators. The community owns itself.
    

As long as they claim to be holding themselves to that standard, people are
_fully_ within their rights to call them out on hypocrisy.

[1]:[https://www.reddit.com/about/values](https://www.reddit.com/about/values)

~~~
jerf
I'd be curious about their exact definition of "safe space". That term on
college campuses is rapidly evolving exactly into ensuring that a diversity of
viewpoints is not even seen or heard, let alone embraced.

I mean this straight; I'd honestly be interested in hearing an elaboration
from them, not as snark about how they can't possibly mean it or something.
Again, no sarcasm or snark, high principles are _hard_.

~~~
jklinger410
Safe space is just code for coddling the first person to claim offense.

A safe space for you, if we are at odds, is an unsafe space for me. The
concept of a universal "safe space" is an impossibility in that regard.

~~~
untog
_A safe space for you, if we are at odds, is an unsafe space for me._

Only if you are determined to be at odds. It's quite possible for an atheist
and a die-hard Christian to get dinner together, if they both commit to
focusing on the topics they share rather than the ones they disagree on.

 _Safe space is just code for coddling the first person to claim offense._

seems like a willful misrepresentation of the aims behind the concept.

~~~
jklinger410
>Only if you are determined to be at odds. It's quite possible for an atheist
and a die-hard Christian to get dinner together, if they both commit to
focusing on the topics they share rather than the ones they disagree on.

That's not honest debate.

>seems like a willful misrepresentation of the aims behind the concept.

As a white male I am often told that I'm not allowed to participate in
discussions because of my race and gender due to the discussion taking place
in "safe space." No matter what the original aims are behind the concept, it
is easily corruptible and almost never used in the "best case scenario." It's
usually used to set up echo-chambers where individuals can feel safe from
criticism or debate. It has no place in a healthy society, IMO.

~~~
untog
_That 's not honest debate._

Who says they have to have an honest debate? Why can't they just have a
conversation with each other? That's the problem with battling attitudes -
there isn't any reason why the two of them _must_ come to blows about their
opposing beliefs. They can simply respect each other and move beyond it.

 _As a white male I am often told that I 'm not allowed to participate in
discussions because of my race and gender due to the discussion taking place
in "safe space."_

Interesting, because as a white male myself I have never been told that. I
have been told that my opinion in a conversation is not an important one,
which is often (not always!) a valid point. But I have never been told I am
cannot participate in a discussion _solely_ because it is a "safe space".
Where are you having these conversations?

~~~
Karunamon
Is there a meaningful and substantial difference between those two things?
Both amount to "your input is not welcome here", both amount to classifying
one's identity more important than the content of their speech, and the entire
concept of a "safe space" is one in which mere disagreement is _explicitly_
disallowed.

~~~
untog
Absolutely there is a difference. If a group of women are talking about their
experiences of sexism in the workplace they ought to be able to do without a
man coming in and "actually"-ing them.

~~~
Karunamon
This set of questions is going to sound a lot more flippant than the tone it's
intended to be in, but I am curious as to the answers:

Why is that?

Why is someone's identity more important than the content of their speech in
this particular case?

Is it impossible for anyone/a man to be against sexism and yet disagree with
someone's characterization of an event?

Are all ideas sacred and above criticism now, or only some ideas?

Which ones?

Who gets to decide that?

Why them?

Why does the right of people to be free from criticism take priority over the
right of people to have a discussion?

Why does mere disagreement necessarily need to be classed as a negative thing
(as you just did?)

How can such an environment foster any kind of healthy discussion, as opposed
to me-too echo-chambering?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Attempt at an honest answer:

If a group has been marginalized, belittled, and excluded for long enough, it
can damage the people in that group. They can need a safe place to heal, to
realize that they matter, that they are as worthwhile as anyone else, and that
they don't have to be what their oppressors said they were. A safe place can
be very important in that process.

Or a safe place can be a place where a bunch that feels oppressed because
somebody looked at them funny, and feels more oppressed because nobody else
thinks they're oppressed, can get together and rehash their sense of
victimhood and exclude anyone who disagrees.

Human nature being what it is, the second is perhaps more likely than the
first. But that does not make the first invalid (when genuinely needed).

------
mhomde
On the surface it seems like a good thing. Taking a stance against the worst
"systematic and continuing harassment" should help the most vitrolic cases.
Some might argue that Reddit should be an " _extreme_ free speech platform"
and this obviously goes against it, but I'm not sure reddit sees itself that
way.

I think most people are afraid of the slippery slope and censorship if taken
too far. Making Reddit "too political correct" would transform the current
culture into something else. Many (or a loud minority) currently doesn't seem
to trust Reddit to not do that. What makes things worse is people assume this
is a "Monetization of a service"-story they've seen played out many times
before with catastrophic results.

In the end I guess it comes down to the execution and agenda.

------
adrianscott
Is this Reddit's Digg 4.0 moment?

~~~
5h
Not quite by my reckoning - but I think the tinder box is close to being lit,
large parts of the community already takes a poor view of its CEO.

~~~
talmand
I agree.

Starting something like this isn't necessarily the death knell, but the
inevitable unequal application of it will be.

------
mcantelon
"Think of the children" justifications for normalizing private sector
censorship seem to be a contemporary ruling class focus. Pao's contribution is
a smart career move.

~~~
techar
Just like how intelligence organizations wraps their methods with "hunting
pedophiles and terrorists".

------
return0
Isn't reddit feeding off the entire nation of self-professed internet
activists who are out to solve the world's injustices? These people are going
to lose their sense of purpose if nobody is attacking them. Don't bite the
hand that indirectly feeds you, reddit.

------
afeafbfba
Reddit is a propaganda site and has been for a while now. Many years ago, it
was predominantly run by the users ( commenting and voting ). Now it's just a
tool for admins and mods to push their agenda/views.

They might as well get rid of the voting system. Reddit is a joke and the
sooner it goes away the better.

------
forgottenpass
So, what's the driving force behind this?

They're not doing it out of the good of their hearts, so I see three obvious
possibilities: making the website a more attractive place to advertize,
external pressure hurting their image (like that time they banned some
subreddits only after being featured on CNN) or trying to appeal to more
women. Did I miss anything?

I assume it's some combination of the above leaning heavily towards
advertizement. Considering the number of house ads I see them running, and the
anecdotal things I've heard about advertizement sales on 4chan or other
uncouth websites.

------
_greim_
> Censorship should be the subreddit's decision.

It's fun to watch parallels develop between reddit site operators versus
subreddit moderators, and federal government versus state's rights. (For
anyone not familiar with this long-running American political theme:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights))

------
edgarvaldes
I said it in another thread, I visit a subreddit with very strict moderation.
Very strict. The place is wonderful for regulars and newcomers. It is healty
and strong. One of the rules is:

>If we find that you are active in any subreddits that promote hatred toward
any particular group of individuals, your participation rights in this sub
will be revoked.

And another:

"Mod abuse will not be tolerated"

Those rules have worked for years.

~~~
mreiland
I'm really interested in knowing what subreddit that is.

~~~
undersuit
[http://www.reddit.com/r/redditgetsdrawn](http://www.reddit.com/r/redditgetsdrawn)

------
hoopd
_> It added that it defines harassment as "systematic and/or continued actions
to torment or demean someone in a way that would make a reasonable person (1)
conclude that reddit is not a safe platform to express their ideas or
participate in the conversation, or (2) fear for their safety or the safety of
those around them"._

In point (1) she basically just described how SRS operates...I doubt they'll
be willing to use this to punish them, though.

Speaing of SRS, maybe it's time the community starts asking A) how many reddit
employees are involved with SRS and B) how many other subs the anonymous* SRS
mods also moderate.

*mostly anonymous. It's public knowledge one of their mods used to be a site admin.

------
techar
Has anyone heard of something called "ignore"? It is possible to do online.

~~~
DanBC
Less possible when you're getting hundreds of messages per day on all your
online accounts with eg pictures of your children leaving school or your
workplace.

~~~
undersuit
No that actually sounds like a really good time to start ignoring things. You
don't feed the trolls, real life or internet.

What's more inflammatory, ignoring a troll after he happens to find a picture
of your children, or aggressively attacking their actions on their medium of
choice? Don't feed the trolls.

------
revelation
Well, at least they are doing _something_. It seems like Reddit has tripled
staff and VC money but has been doing exactly zero, nada, zilch. The site is
the same, as are the ads, the downtimes, the loading problems, the ...

~~~
cryoshon
Hint: it's an ad revenue based cash-out. They don't actually need more servers
or features, they need more curators and ways to channel money.

Sell off the valuable real estate and make the site cleaner for advertisers so
that there's less bad PR when one of the uglier subreddits gets critical mass
and finds public attention.

------
dmfdmf
I'd just like to point out the Pao and Reddit can do anything they want on
their property and it __is not censorship __. Private parties cannot censor,
only the government can censor which why the recent nationalization of the US
Internet by the FCC is so dangerous for Free Speech. When the FCC comes out
with their "Internet Anti-Harassment and Diversity Guidelines" that must be
followed at the threat of shutting down your blog, that is true censorship and
should not be tolerated.

~~~
briandh
Actually, the everyday meaning of censorship quite clearly includes the
private suppression of speech. Them having the right to engage in it is
independent of that.

~~~
dmfdmf
Well, if that's the case we'd better be careful with our definition and use of
concepts or we will lose our freedoms.

------
cozuya
I can't agree with many of the comments here. I have a 7 year old reddit
account, go there daily, am still subbed to many defaults, and I just haven't
seen many of the accusations of terribleness and the inevitable downfall that
have been professed here. In my experience, the growth of the site hasn't
changed it much at all.. maybe more reposts to the front page but that's not a
big surprise.

It is what you make of it.

------
gdulli
It would be nice if they would have a spam/self-promotion crackdown.

~~~
debacle
/r/iama/ one of their main revenue sources, is all about self-promotion.

~~~
gdulli
And that's not a problem since it's the point of that subreddit, but the
behavior is sitewide.

------
forgottenpass
I see the submission title has been edited so that it's no longer the title
the BBC used. I get what the social pressures are around here, but c'mon son.

