Promote ideas, protect people

got_milk4 · 2 時間前

This is a very abstract blog post - what, exactly, do the admins plan to do when complains of harassment are submitted?

70616c616b6b6164616e · 2 時間前

What if it's the mods of a subreddit (like /r/india) doing the harassment?

overallprettyaverage · 2 時間前

Still waiting on some word on the state of shadow banning

K_Lobstah · 2 時間前

So this will be enforced by admin, but how is reporting of it handled? Just modmail to /r/reddit.com? Are there plans to increase the efficiency or response rate for messages sent there? Will moderator reports of other users being harassed be given the same level of attention?

The vast majority of subscribers aren't even aware they can contact admin. We receive reports of harassment in modmail quite frequently.

cj_would_lovethis · 2 時間前

Based on your own data, 35% of the complaints from extremely dissatisfied users were about heavy handed moderation and censorship

What is being done about that?

wantingsilence · 2 時間前

The harassed can report their so called harassers, correct? Will the harassers get any notification or chance to defend themselves, or will they just be shadowbanned?

vehementsquirrel · 2 時間前

When will you clarify what constitutes brigading? Will you continue to ban people in secret for rules that are kept hidden from the users?

With regard to the new harassment rule, what remedy will Reddit admins employ against users accused of harassment? Will they also be shadowbanned, or will they be told they were banned and given an opportunity to respond to the accusation?

2015goodyear · 2 時間前

So no new features or anything, just a new policy? That could be good. Can you elaborate on the policy though?

What happens if someone is reported for harassment? Reddit staff decides whether or not its harassment and then..... removes the content? Bans the harasser? Shadowbans the harasser? What's the plan?

kvachon · 1 時間前

So is stuff like /r/justneckbeardthings and /r/fatpeoplehate against the rules now? Systematic and continued actions to demean people which would make any reasonable person feel unable to discuss any ideas that might go against the majority opinion? Or is it more for stuff like http://redd.it/35uiwv or http://redd.it/35xc8d which involves stalking a person to see what they post about where and for what purpose, solely to bring it forward to a group of people to judge and demean said person.

Which of those is now harrasement. If none are, then what is a concrete example of it. Does it need to be reported to you by the person being harrased? Does the admin team have to decide that they consider the treatment harassment? What constitutes feeling "like reddit isnt a safe place" seeing as its website with text comments.

To be honest, it seems like this rule is going to open a new can of worms, not solve any issues. You should either not allow mean comments, or not moderate legal comments. Trying to find that grey area is going to require you to choose sides on infinite endless battles between groups of people that honestly hate eachother. I know reddit tries its hardest to be a safe and friendly place, but there's a sub-section of this site that wants nothing more than to hate on things. Culture, people, trends, politics, reddit itself. ITs a pretty hate filled site outside of saner places like /r/aww or /r/askscience. ITs one of the prices you need to pay when you dont require anyone to reveal who they are. You cant expect anonymous people to retain their inhibitions and manners.

backtowriting · 1 時間前

So, how do you distinguish harassment from legitimate criticism? And how can that be done in a transparent way?

Personally, I'm not sure it's possible to always make the distinction. What may look like legitimate criticism to X may seem like harassment to Y.

Was e.g. criticism of Adria Richards after the dongle-gate incident harassment? All of it? At what point is the line crossed?

Manadox · 51 分前

censor free thought, supress dissenting opinions

FTFY

itty53 · 2 時間前

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.

What cracks me up is that this will apply to both sides of many arguments, but only one side is bound to get punished for it.

For instance: Is it safe for a conspiracy theorist to express their ideas and participate in conversation without being ridiculed? What about someone who thinks vaccines are dangerous? Or are those the dangerous ideas that need to be censored?

What does 'harassment' mean too? If someone calls me a name in a response, once (not-repeated), is that harassment? I've been insulted. I've been put 'in danger' of feeling insulted or harassed. Is this just a big 'be polite' rule? Because I've known plenty of polite trolls.

I'm not trying to defend harassers or anything - I've been the target of one individual in particular who followed and replied to comments as old as 6 months (and the admins banned him as soon as I reported him) - but the 'rules' that are being written here are vague and thus, flexible: They can apply when the admins choose and not apply when the admins don't. Which is exactly what's been happening, albeit unofficially. Now it seems it's official: Reddit admins will censor you and your ideas if they perceive them as 'scary'.

By this rule, it sounds to me that all the GamerGate/GamerGhazi infighting is banned: Those groups are both systematically harassing and demeaning each other. /r/fatpeoplehate seems a systematic harassment subreddit towards fat people (most of which are non-redditors).

And finally, I note that 'reasonable' is left out: All you have to be is afraid in order to claim you're being harassed. You don't have to be reasonably afraid, just afraid. I should note that most fears aren't reasonable at all. Nope, it says reasonable people. I wonder how they'll define 'reasonable'.

IAmTurdFerguson · 41 分前

So are we officially jumping ship to Voat now? This is an SJW sinking ship.

the_leif · 1 時間前

Well here's something nobody wants or asked for.

I_smell_awesome · 2 時間前

Why do I get the feeling that this is just a first step into removing downvotes?

notdrunkinflorida · 1 時間前

I think you're jumping the shark here Alex. Who's going to decide what's 'safe'? Mods are the last people I trust to do that.

The internet is inherently toxic, you can't fix that. I get that you want to get rid of /r/fatpeoplehate and /r/coontown and people have said some over-the-top nasty things about Ellen Pao but I'm afraid what this is also going to do is ban dissenting opinions. This sounds awfully despotic to me.

Okichah · 1 時間前

https://voat.co/

danheskett · 2 時間前

It's odd to have a post one day from admin's about transparency, and then the next day, have an entire new post which involves new rules that are nearly 100% opaque.

The definition of harassment is so vague as to be useless, as are the penalties.

ecafyelims · 1 時間前

Reading over the survey results. I can't see where people were complaining about being harassed. I even went to the survey CSV and did a CTRL-F for "harass" and came up with 0 results.

I'm not convinced harassment is as big of an issue as you think.

Instead, like you say, the reason they don't recommend to friends is "they want to avoid exposing friends to hate and offensive content"

Well, offensive content can mean any range of things. I know a lot of people who are offended by the science behind climate change. I know others who are offended by LGBT in the public. I know a lot of people who are offended by nudity, in general.

I hope you're not going to start removing content based on reports of it being "offensive," and I'm scared you'll start shadowbanning users under general guideline of "harassment" such as calling out CEO's for misconduct.

Please tell me this isn't the plan.

niczar · 33 分前

Would you care to comment on this occurence, whereby a guy's dick was hosted on your servers without his consent and you did nothing about it? Does it only matter when it happens to wymyn?

MattyB4x4 · 27 分前

TL;DR: Reddit will start censoring users comments if they are found offensive.

Hypocritical clowns.

TotesMessenger · 2 時間前

This thread has been linked to from another place on reddit.

[/r/conspiracy] The beginning of the end; reddit admins will now censor any subreddit, submission, or comment which is found to contain "harassment".
[/r/metacancersubdrama] The cancer has spread: Admins hate free speech and want to destroy it
[/r/subredditcancer] "Promote ideas, protect people" - All for the common good

^{If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote.} ^(Info ^/ ^Contact)

Taedirk · 1 時間前

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

Having my account flagged to hide my posts from appearing to others with no warning, no confirmation outside third party checks, and little-to-no remedy makes me conclude that reddit is not a safe platform to express ideas. Disagree with the wrong person and my voice is silenced for all.

RobKhonsu · 1 時間前

Another empty blog post from a intellectually bankrupt corporation.

KindaConfusedIGuess · 51 分前

So that means you're gonna shut down subs like /r/ShitRedditSays, /r/SubredditDrama, /r/Conspiratard, /r/GamerGhazi and /r/Fatpeoplehate, right?

You know, subs that actually revolve around harassment.

^{^{^Probably}} ^{^{^not.}}

1wf · 2 時間前

I hope we aren't trying to become Tumblr. The internet isn't a safe space. It never has been and hopefully never will be - safe is boring, heavily regulated and Brave New Worldish.

I don't like personal attacks either - but this appears to be your grounds to ban subs like /r/fatpeoplehate and /r/fatlogic or /r/CandidFashionPolice .

You truly didn't clarify what actions you plan to take to stop harassment. Its either a toothless policy OR a policy absent clear standards/transparency. . .

neohephaestus · 1 時間前

So you're finally getting rid of ShitRedditSays?

Godspiral · 1 時間前

Would this be a good opportunity to bait someone into saying something that could hurt my feelings? Will you then wield your powerful ban hammer to my satisfaction against whoever I choose? Its obvious to me that my gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and race is oppressed by everyone who thinks otherwise, and those fucking worthless assholes will say things that I find mean.

How can I better ensure that ALL OF THOSE HATEFUL PEOPLE can be pushed to removing themselves from the internet (if not the planet) by appealing to your mod powers?

Alternatively, if you feel that I may be improperly seeking post-modern tactics in order to bait people into getting banned to my satisfaction, what procedures exist to prevent me from abusing your powers?

cjcrashoveride · 1 時間前

Wouldn't the easier solution have just been to make the report button actually, ya know, do something?

relic2279 · 1 時間前

I don't really want to beat a dead attack helicopter, but a sizeable portion of these types of attacks & problems could be, or would be directly (and indirectly) solved by better mod tools... If we could IP ban users from our subreddits who are harassing (a hashed IP so mods wouldn't know the actual IP address for privacy reasons), for example, it would cut down on the amount of toxicity those types of users were bringing to the sub.

Then there's the whole deterrent aspect; if people know they can't just create a sockpuppet to get around an IP ban, or had to hop on a VPN in order to circumvent it, they may think twice, or may not be as hostile in their commenting. Sure, it's not a perfect solution. I don't think a perfect solution exists. But it's a good solution. The benefits of such a feature far outweighs the negatives.

In the rare cases where someone accidentally bans an IP that was shared by a university or business (or in the case of wikipedia, a country), it could be and would be escalated to the admins who do what they normally do when that happens. Since it would be a rare occurrence, it shouldn't be much of a consideration to take into account.

Kalium · 58 分前

Looking at the comments, and what's been upvoted, it becomes clear to me that there is a problem. Reflexive cynicism and distrust rule the day.

/u/kn0thing and /u/5days it seems that Reddit has lost the enthusiastic trust and support of its community. How do you plan to address this?

elavers · 54 分前

This blog post has made me fear for my safety on Reddit. I no longer feel that Reddit is a safe platform to express my ideas because of it.

Mcsquizzy · 1 時間前

What is with all of the reddit propaganda lately? Seems very unusual and out-of-the-blue for the random face-saving posts about how great Reddit is

Maverick0325 · 2 時間前

In recent years I've noticed more and more companies releasing statements like this. Typically stating that there is something they will not do, then immediately do that thing.

This change will have no immediately noticeable impact on more than 99.99% of our users. It is specifically designed to prevent attacks against people, not ideas. It is our challenge to balance free expression of ideas with privacy and safety as we seek to maintain and improve the quality and range of discourse on reddit.

How can we be certain that moderators won't use this new harassment policy as an excuse to censor ideas they disagree with?

dummystupid · 1 時間前

There's a lot of admin blog posts lately.

Not sure how to feel about all the "announcements".

namer98 · 1 時間前

What if an entire sub harasses users?

risingstars · 1 時間前

Have affairs, be a bigot, sue your employers over bullshiy, cover it up from reddit. :)

i_lost_my_password · 1 時間前

On the internet, as in real life, I value liberty over safety.

AustNerevar · 56 分前

Protection from harassment...

Safe space...

Shadowbans...

You guys are just trying to run off most of the userbase, aren't you.

Don't turn Reddit into Tumblr. It isn't want the majority of users want.

XPythagoras · 2 時間前

Don't 'keep everyone safe'. This isn't Facebook, reddit is a free speech platform and I don't think that the omniscient mods like /u/kn0thing should be able to dictate to subreddits how they should handle their community. Censorship should be the subreddit's decision. If we feel that some sub's should be silenced then we are no better than they are.

Br00ce · 2 時間前

Because of this, we are changing our practices to prohibit attacks and harassment of individuals through reddit with the goal of preventing them

What? The goal of harassers to prevent harassing or is it your goal to stop these harassers preemptively? Or is this just another vague rule you can twist to fit any situation like "brigading"?

graffiti81 · 1 時間前

So basically you interviewed SRS.

dudenamedben · 2 時間前

Reddit has officially jumped the shark. What this is is a mea culpa admitting that their history of letting the community police itself hasn't worked (it has) and beginning a crackdown on expression/speech/communities the admins don't like.

It started with /r/jailbait... but I wasn't a ephebophile so I didn't speak up. Then they came for /r/thefappening, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't into fuzzy pictures of people I don't know. Then they came for /r/gamergate, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a gamer.

I'm speaking up now. This is a step in a VERY WRONG direction and will be the end of reddit as we know it if it's allowed to continue

Instead of promoting free expression of ideas, we are seeing our open policies stifling free expression

No, you're seeing expression you don't like and have decided to stifle that. If you're going to become a curated community of safe spaces and hugboxes, say that. If you're going to be a space for free expression, then you have to understand that some expression will offend your sensibilities. That's a GOOD THING. How else can one find out that they're wrong if not for challenging their own ideas?

I really hope that the reddit admins reconsider the path they're going down. Shadowbanning those who question Ellen Pao, banning communities that they don't like... digg fell for less than this. Reddit could very well be next.

CttCJim · 1 時間前

is it harassment if someone bans you from a sub you've never posted in? it feels like it is.

Narfhole · 2 時間前

One person's safety is another's closemindedness.

MrRexels · 2 時間前

Great, fortify the hugbox and echo chamber so no dissenting opinions can ''hurt'' others. Also, people being mean to you on the Internet =/= harassment, they are pixels on a monitor.

ReverseSolipsist · 1 時間前

I suggest that people send an email about harassment every time a hate sub like /r/SRS or /r/Bad(whatever) links to your comment. I think it's very easy to argue that linking to something you said specifically so that a subreddit full of people can mock it "would make a reasonable person conclude that reddit is not a safe platform to express their ideas or participate in the conversation."

See if anything is done about that.

walkingtheriver · 2 時間前

This harassment policy will not, definitely and totally and absolutely not, under any circumstances, be used to ban people for talking about Ellen Pao. /s

RedSocks157 · 59 分前

This is headed towards censorship. Guess what, if you don't like something that's not the other person's problem - it's yours. You don't like /r/fatpeoplehate or whatever other sub? Don't go there.

Promote ideas sounds a lot like "ideas we approve of", which is also frankly a bunch of homogenizing bullshit.

Bottom line, stop trying to control your users.

MARsDoesNothing · 1 時間前

Now you can get banned if you say anything bad about a specific person.

I wonder if Ellen Pao had anything to do with this? I would imagine she's tired of everyone knowing the truth about her.

DeadGamerWalking · 1 時間前

/r/ShitRedditSays makes it unsafe for me to express my ideas. Will you ban that subreddit?

starworks5 · 1 時間前

What will your legal response be when your definition of harassment, would instead appear to be a form of arbitrary discrimination, as defined by the Unruh Act of California? By directly opposing to the legal definition of harassment, instead portraying it as a "right to not be offended", which has already been invalidated by the supreme court.

You are effectively discriminating against the equal opportunity to of a person to enjoy reddit, because you're arbitrarily discriminating against their completely legal legitimate personal views, most notably the views critical of the very misconduct of leadership itself which are often censored. I for example think that the ethics of using reddit users for social science experiments by SJW's including Max Goodman is disgusting.

As far as I can tell, I have no trust about your need harassment policy, because its derived from statistics without a methodology, and I wouldn't be surprised if the data was groped to meet the conclusion. The majority of the members of your social science team operate with methodological and ideological biases anyways, and study things like idea manipulation and censorship.

http://derp.instutute

Do you really not realize that the reddit community could ALSO sue for discrimination?

– Jessica ( /u/5days ), Ellen ( /u/ekjp ), Alexis ( /u/kn0thing ) & the rest of team reddit

https://oag.ca.gov/publications/CRhandbook/ch4

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

velvetbunnyrabbit · 14 分前

Let me guess: Views from the LEFT will all be found reasonable, while any view from the RIGHT will be deemed harassment.

Just get it over with and admit that like every other haven of leftist bullshit you clearly want to remove the ability for anyone to have an opinion that doesn't match yours.

How "progressive" of you.

J-Unleashed · 14 分前

Doubt this will be seen, but I have a screenshot of a mod of a sub saying they would kill someone and their entire family. At what point can we say they are a problem?

chugz · 9 分前

Buddy Fletcher, husband of Reddit CEO Ellen Pao, is being described as being the operator of Ponzi scheme after his now bankrupt firm diverted money for their own use and, according to the Chapter 11 trustee, committed fraud against investors. Three Louisiana pension funds lost $144 million.

shadow bans for everyone.

chugz · 6 分前

fuck off.

pmckizzle · 5 分前

oh great, reddit is becoming tumblr. A hug box for people who can't handle having their feels hurt :'( and who like to play the victim. Fuck reddits new hard on for sjw pandering. Fuck the fucking shit out of that cunt pao and the sjw admins who have a hard on for /r/shitredditsays in the hopes they might get to sleep with a legbeard, since no normal woman will. Or who play the victim and sue for harassment (pao). Fuck the fat people who'd rather censor people, than admit they need to fucking lose weight. Fuck the whiteknights, fuck the rad fems, fuck the fat sows, fuck the professional victims.

mobugs · 1 時間前

Instead of promoting free expression of ideas, we are seeing our open policies stifling free expression; people avoid participating for fear of their personal and family safety

Does this mean you're finally shutting SRS down?

vexinom · 1 時間前

There are SRS mods that have harassed people talking about committing suicide still on the site. What are you going to do about them?

Darr_Syn · 40 分前

The continued use of the word "safe" in this blogpost seems. . . ominous.

See, I'm a mod of a number of BDSM subreddits and the term "safe" is one that's used quite a bit and is talked about all the time. But it's also argued about.

Let me put it this way.

What about my subreddits? Is discussing my kinks, hobbies, and passions going to be seen as "threatening" or " fear for their safety or the safety of those around them" by the very action of existing?

Many people have issues with alternative sexual practices and can see what I, an active sexual sadist, do as unsafe and even threatening.

So should I be worried about being protected against?

The issue that this brings up is what is considered "safe". In the BDSM world we tend to understand that there's no such thing as being 100% safe. It's a concept that is mythical, and fictional. Sitting there at your computer reading this there is a chance, no matter how small, that you could be hurt, harmed, or even killed.

That is true throughout the world. Both online and offline. The world is not safe. The internet is not safe.

At best you can make things safeR, but never safe.

But given your recent announcement of transparency I also have to ask, what is the process for being deemed "unsafe"? Are people going to be told they are being unsafe? Is there an appeal process? What are the punishments for being unsafe? Are there varying degrees of unsafeness?

This seems like an ideal that sounds good in political-speak and on paper but can, and should, be questioned quite a bit before being implemented.

almightybob1 · 1 時間前

Riveting. I await the next feel-good update and vague Newspeak title with bated breath.

abs159 · 1 時間前

What if it's the interim CEO who's using their position to exploit and take advantage of other people?

r314t · 1 時間前

Shouldn't there be an exception for public figures and politicians? Not that I think harassing politicians or public figures is okay, but I feel like with the way it is worded it could easily be abused to ban political satire.

I'm sure some of the things Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert say, if they were posted on reddit, would make people like George Bush or certain Fox News anchors "conclude that reddit is not a safe platform to express their ideas or participate in the conversation."

K10S · 1 時間前

I hope you all realize that this is what you're doing with this. I respect the position, but dont pretend that you're in favor freedom speech.

NoMoreNicksLeft · 1 時間前

So this means you'll be shutting down subredditdrama, or no?

audobot · 2 時間前

Research team speaking here. For those of you who want to check out what we learned from our survey of redditors, head over to /r/redditdata for What we learned from our March 2015 survey

blog

調停者