
Reddit bans 2000 communities including The_Donald - subroutine
https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/update_to_our_content_policy/
======
Tempest1981
Earlier today:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679425](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679425)

~~~
imtringued
It's the same topic but a different article. The reddit anouncement is the
official source and it's not paywalled so this submission still has some value
in my opinion.

------
9nGQluzmnq3M
I've never heard of Chapo Trap House before, apparently it's a "dirtbag left"
podcast:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapo_Trap_House](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapo_Trap_House)

Am I being too cynical to assume it was singled out in the comms so Reddit can
pretend to be fair and balanced, when the actual target was r/The_Donald?

~~~
wtallis
I regularly check the comment history of reddit users when I come across a
particularly egregious trolling comment on subreddits like /r/news and
/r/politics. Users who frequented /r/ChapoTrapHouse are a real problem, and
lately I'd been seeing that subreddit in people's comment history more often
than /r/The_Donald (which had withered considerably from its peak). This isn't
a case of Reddit simply picking an obscure target for the sake of "balance";
they were going after a real problem.

~~~
chiefalchemist
With the subreddit(s) gone there will be no comment history. You've now lost
signal, some added context. We all have.

The subreddit(s) isn't the problem. It's a symptom. Extremists feed on
marginalization. It's a rallying cry.

Reddit has served its community. Fair enough. But it's ultimately a balloon
grab. There will be unintended consequences. Further marginalizing the
frustrated won't stop those feelings.

------
schnautzi
> While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups
> or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of
> people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.

Some are more equal than others.

~~~
peroporque
The left is currently redefining racism. Hate against Whites is defined as not
being racist. And being White is means that you are always racist. I wish, I
was kidding.

~~~
collyw
Sad that this truth has been downvoted.

~~~
peroporque
Better only being downvoted than being Canceled, like so many others are for
daring to question the new "truths".

So many people's economic and social lives have already been destroyed.

~~~
collyw
The silent majority needs to be able to stand up to the authoritarian and
vocal minority. The problem is that you can loose your job over questioning
them.

------
ovi256
Reddit's not just banning the subreddits, it's banning mentions of the
websites where these communities are moving.

Reddit does not want to host these groups anymore. But it doesn't want them to
organize and find another host.

It's a lot of power for a free forum hoster.

~~~
zozbot234
Interesting. I do know about thedonald.win - any news about the ChapoTrapHouse
community?

~~~
polytely
The chapo crew met on twitter so that is where their main community is, the
relationship with /r/cth was never great I think.

Chapo members Will Menaker (@willmenaker) and Matt Christman (@cushbomb) seem
to be glad it is gone.

\-
[https://twitter.com/cushbomb/status/1277649588019699716](https://twitter.com/cushbomb/status/1277649588019699716)

\-
[https://twitter.com/willmenaker/status/1277649915041153025](https://twitter.com/willmenaker/status/1277649915041153025)

------
ybbond
Just after I read about [Lemmy] on [hn post], and kinda moved to it.

[Lemmy]: [https://dev.lemmy.ml](https://dev.lemmy.ml)

[hn post]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23664067](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23664067)

------
chadcmulligan
Suppose they'll move to voat.co now, a lot of the too extreme for the_donald
had moved there already.

------
subroutine
> _Alongside the change to the content policy, we are initially banning about
> 2000 subreddits, the vast majority of which are inactive. Of these
> communities, about 200 have more than 10 daily users. Both r /The_Donald and
> r/ChapoTrapHouse were included._

------
tatrajim
We’re a long way from the halcyon days of Usenet. Couldn’t have imagined in
the 1980s the embrace of censorship by the tech world. It almost makes me
physically ill.

------
peroporque
This is just another small piece in the big puzzle of social changes that are
currently happening. The "Big Nap" is over. And it won't be fun.

------
AHappyCamper
One of the values I believe in the most is the right to free speech.

Free speech is a powerful thing, which means it can be used for good and for
bad. Sometimes what appears to us today as bad can actually turn out to be
good in the future.

The general rule of free speech is that it does not permit threats of violence
or obvious incitement to violence.

Hate speech, on the other hand, is MUCH more subjective. What may appear to me
to be a well-reasoned argument may to you appear to be hate speech.

With these complex issues in mind, I'd say that unless the groups that Reddit
banned were advocating or threatening violence, banning them was counter-
productive and hurtful to having an open and free discourse on the internet.

Of course, there is the go-to argument that Reddit is a private company, and
as such they can do whatever they like, but because they provide a public
service that is used by billions of people, they have an obligation to uphold
the values and laws of our society - most notably the first amendment - which
protects free speech.

~~~
krapp
You speak as if there is an objective definition of "threats of violence or
obvious incitement to violence" but I've seen people argue that as no less
subjective (and therefore no less a slippery slope) as defining hate speech.

~~~
AHappyCamper
I think there is a much more objective definition of "threats of violence or
obvious incitement to violence" than there is for hate speech.

Some people could interpret a sentence like: "I don't like the taste of curry"
to be hate speech, since it targets the ethnic food of a difference race. (For
the record, I love curry...)

So yes, banning "hate speech" that does not threaten violence is a slippery
slope, because it is simply too open to interpretation.

~~~
krapp
A "much more objective" definition is still subjective. Some people consider
the fourteen words "We must secure the existence of our people and a future
for white children" to be a threat of violence, others consider it to simply a
neutral statement. Some people consider wearing MAGA hats to be a threat of
violence, others simply a form of patriotism. Was Trump making a racist,
violent threat when he said "when the looting starts, the shooting starts," or
just prosaically supporting law and order?

If it can be argued that one can apply a test of reasonableness as to whether
or not a statement constitutes a threat of violence, then it should be the
case such a test can be applied to hate speech. There's a risk of abuse
involved in both cases, yes, but there is always a risk where the
interpretation of language for political ends is involved.

~~~
AHappyCamper
No. If everything is subjective, then we must err on the side of being
permissive, not restrictive, because if we choose restrictive, then everything
is a threat of violence and illegal, and what you just said above is against
the law and you need to go to jail for it (it isn't, and you don't - I'm just
trying to illustrate a point).

Here's why you're wrong about your approach: if everything is subjective and
the answer to everything is repression, then the law is no longer valid, and
the only possible outcome is civil war.

If you do not want bloody, horrific, monstrous civil war with giant swarths of
the population who don't agree with you, then you should err on the side of
being permissive of questionable speech.

As you've seen from the mass riots recently in the USA, a massive violent
response is only a single sensationalist news story away.

We need to support and encourage free speech.

~~~
krapp
> if everything is subjective and the answer to everything is repression, then
> the law is no longer valid, and the only possible outcome is civil war.

We already live in a world in which limits on speech exist, including the
limit against threats of violence being discussed. We also already live in a
world in which every law besides the laws of physics is subjective and open to
interpretation.

If it is the case that subjective reality must render law invalid, then the
law is and has always been invalid. Given that the law does not appear to be
invalid, and civilization appears to remain intact, it cannot be stated as a
certainty that the existence of laws themselves (restrictions) in a subjective
reality must inevitably lead to anarchy.

Your error is the fallacy of the excluded middle, assuming the only possible
paths to take here are towards unrestricted free speech or arbitrary
repression.

>If you do not want bloody, horrific, monstrous civil war with giant swarths
of the population who don't agree with you, then you should err on the side of
being permissive of questionable speech.

Arguments of the type "x or blood will be on your hands" appear more
extortionate than appealing to reason. I don't believe that Reddit banning
these communities will lead to that outcome, and if you consider that a likely
possibility, maybe you should reexamine your assumptions.

>As you've seen from the mass riots recently in the USA, a massive violent
response is only a single sensationalist news story away.

There was a _lot_ more behind that then a single sensationalist news story.

------
Reimersholme
"Communities and people that incite violence or that promote hate based on
identity or vulnerability will be banned.

[...]

While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or
all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people
who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate."

So as long as you hate or incite violence towards whatever groups Reddit
define as "in the majority", you are welcome? Mind blowing...

------
bluecalm
I am ok with Reddit choosing what content is publicly available on their
platform. It should go without saying Reddit should also be responsible for
the content it chooses to serve.

If anything it's unfair competition against traditional media which doesn't
enjoy "platform" protections.

