•
•

Let's talk content. AMA. (self.announcements)

spez[A] が 投稿

We started Reddit to be—as we said back then with our tongues in our cheeks—“The front page of the Internet.” Reddit was to be a source of enough news, entertainment, and random distractions to fill an entire day of pretending to work, every day. Occasionally, someone would start spewing hate, and I would ban them. The community rarely questioned me. When they did, they accepted my reasoning: “because I don’t want that content on our site.”

As we grew, I became increasingly uncomfortable projecting my worldview on others. More practically, I didn’t have time to pass judgement on everything, so I decided to judge nothing.

So we entered a phase that can best be described as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. This worked temporarily, but once people started paying attention, few liked what they found. A handful of painful controversies usually resulted in the removal of a few communities, but with inconsistent reasoning and no real change in policy.

One thing that isn't up for debate is why Reddit exists. Reddit is a place to have open and authentic discussions. The reason we’re careful to restrict speech is because people have more open and authentic discussions when they aren't worried about the speech police knocking down their door. When our purpose comes into conflict with a policy, we make sure our purpose wins.

As Reddit has grown, we've seen additional examples of how unfettered free speech can make Reddit a less enjoyable place to visit, and can even cause people harm outside of Reddit. Earlier this year, Reddit took a stand and banned non-consensual pornography. This was largely accepted by the community, and the world is a better place as a result (Google and Twitter have followed suit). Part of the reason this went over so well was because there was a very clear line of what was unacceptable.

Therefore, today we're announcing that we're considering a set of additional restrictions on what people can say on Reddit—or at least say on our public pages—in the spirit of our mission.

These types of content are prohibited [1]:

  • Spam
  • Anything illegal (i.e. things that are actually illegal, such as copyrighted material. Discussing illegal activities, such as drug use, is not illegal)
  • Publication of someone’s private and confidential information
  • Anything that incites harm or violence against an individual or group of people
  • Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)
  • Sexually suggestive content featuring minors

There are other types of content that are specifically classified:

  • Adult content must be flagged as NSFW (Not Safe For Work). Users must opt into seeing NSFW communities. This includes pornography, which is difficult to define, but you know it when you see it.
  • Similar to NSFW, another type of content that is difficult to define, but you know it when you see it, is the content that violates a common sense of decency. This classification will require a login, must be opted into, will not appear in search results or public listings, and will generate no revenue for Reddit.

We've had the NSFW classification since nearly the beginning, and it's worked well to separate the pornography from the rest of Reddit. We believe there is value in letting all views exist, even if we find some of them abhorrent, as long as they don’t pollute people’s enjoyment of the site. Separation and opt-in techniques have worked well for keeping adult content out of the common Redditor’s listings, and we think it’ll work for this other type of content as well.

No company is perfect at addressing these hard issues. We’ve spent the last few days here discussing and agree that an approach like this allows us as a company to repudiate content we don’t want to associate with the business, but gives individuals freedom to consume it if they choose. This is what we will try, and if the hateful users continue to spill out into mainstream reddit, we will try more aggressive approaches. Freedom of expression is important to us, but it’s more important to us that we at reddit be true to our mission.

[1] This is basically what we have right now. I’d appreciate your thoughts. A very clear line is important and our language should be precise.

上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500
並べ替え:
Q&A (提案されたアイデア)
ベストトップ新着論争中古い順

[–]mach-2 150ポイント151ポイント  (38子コメント)

/u/spez, /u/kn0thing

Are you going to push the button?

Reddit is on its way to being one of if not the most trafficked forum in the world. It is considered the front page of the internet both literally and metaphorically. I love reddit . I have met awesome people on here. I cannot deny that fact. I have learned so much from here. I have wasted more time here than I should have yet strangely, I would not be the current man I am without Reddit. You've stated time and time again that your intent was not for a completely free speech website. Alexis has stated otherwise in the past. In your absence, the previous C.E.O(/u/yishan) upheld the "free speech" mantra.

Unfortunately, in order for freedom of speech to be in effect, there had to be interaction. That is the very essence of speech. To interact. To elucidate. To that end, it also involves the freedom of hate. There is no way to soften the reality of the situation. There's a plethora of infections on the various arms of this website. And it's spread so much so that there has to be an amputation. This is not a fix. This is the first step to recovery. There is a seriously broken and dangerous attitude being fostered under the banner of free speech. The common argument has always been about "quarantining" the hate groups to their subs. But that has failed woefully. A cross pollination of bigotry was the inevitable outcome. The inmates run the asylum. There is a festering undertow of white supremacist/anti-woman/homophobic culture ever present on this website.

The venn diagram of those clamoring for completely unmitigated "free speech" and those looking for an audience to proselytize about their hate groups is a circle. One oscillating circle that has swarmed the "front page" of your website. That is not to say every proponent of free speech is a racist/sexist bigot. That is to say that every racist/sexist bigot ON REDDIT is a proponent of unmoderated thunderdome style free speech. There is a common belief that Redditors make accounts in order to unsubscribe from the default subreddits. What does that say about the state of your website when the default communities are brimming with toxicity and hatred? What does that say about the "front page of the internet' where the toxic miasma of hatred is the very essence for which it is known for?

Day in day out, your website gets featured on media outlets for being the epicenter of some misogynistic, racist and utterly pigheaded scandal. From Anderson Cooper and the jailbait fiasco to the fappening to Ellen Pao's(/u/ekjp) most recent online lynching. This website is in a lot of trouble, packed tight in a hate fueled propellant heading at light speed towards a brick wall of an irreparable shit tier reputation. If left unchecked, your website will become a radioactive wasteland to the very celebs and advertisers you are trying to attract. But it's not too late. Only you can stop it. This is your watershed moment.

Diplomacy has failed. There is no compromise. That ship has sailed and found natives. From fatpeoplehate to coontown to the ever present talisman of "chan culture" reactionary bollocks. These groups have shown time and time again that they are willing to lash out, disrupt and poison any community they set their sights on. The pictures comparing Ellen Pao to Chairman mao or the racist rhetoric against her ethnicity did not come from outside. They came from and were propelled by the very loud crowd of bigots hiding behind the free speech proponents on this private website.

The basement of hate subs is no longer a containment. It's a lounge with a beacon. There is no "exchange of ideas/honest discussion" going on. There is only a podium for whatever crank pundit can present the warm milk to the default redditor about the encroachment of the omniscient millennial "social justice warriors/bleeding heart liberals". That's why subs like /r/shitredditsays draw more ire than literal white supremacist hubs like /r/coontown and /r/beatingniggers.

That's why this website was basically unusable when fatpeoplehate got banned. And that scab peels and bleeds over the front page anytime a person with any combination of...( Arab , Roma, Asian, Brown, Black, Female, Feminist, Gay, Indian, Muslim, Native or Progressive in some form or the other.) You say there is a very loud minority doing all this. Then it seems like it's time to take out the fucking trash. You want free flow of ideas, there's a couple of ways to go about this... Firstly

MODERATION, MODERATORS, THE FAULTS & THE DEFAULTS: The impending moderator tools are supposed to help moderators I presume? What about squatting inactive top moderators who let these default communities become the festering piles of toxicity that they are? Shouldn't the default moderators be held accountable? If you are going to tacitly advertise subreddits as the "default face of Reddit", you might want to make sure that face is acne free and not hidden behind a klan hood. If someone is going to moderate a place called /r/videos, is such a generalized community not supposed to be publicly inviting and not some springboard for the latest stormfront and anti-feminist bait video?

What happens if you create a check and balance to rejuvenate the idle mods whose sole purposes are to squat on places like /r/pics and /r/funny and /r/videos and claim to be "moderators" while doing nothing whatsoever? They demand tools from you. It's high time you demand right back. Places like /r/science are top quality precisely because they are moderated. Places like /r/pics and /r/videos become klan rallies precisely because they are not. You have to deal with those responsible for leaving the flood gates open. Why wouldnt 150,000 people feel perfectly fine to create a sub called fatpeopplehate and basically flood the "front page of the internet"?

The current defaults are over run with this toxic reactionary internet based hate groups. Places like /r/videos, /r/news, /r/pics , /r/funny and even /r/dataisbeautiful and /r/todayilearned are completely unrecognizable hubs of antebellum style 17th century phrenological debates about the degeneracy of women, gays and minorities. The recent Ellen Pao lynch mob is a perfect example of that. She was called a cunt and then Chairman Pao and then things like "ching chong" got tossed around. It's high time you drag them kicking and screaming to the 21st century or you decide to not have them as the defaults.

I'm a moderator of /r/offmychest. We banned outright bigotry and hatred against any group of protected classes. People revolted when they could no longer make threads about how much they hated blacks or muslims or women. The sub is still thriving and growing. We banned users of Fatpeoplehate and yet we are still around after a mere two days of their supposed revolt.

SHADOWBANNING , IP BANNING & CENSORSHIP A.K.A Captain Ahab and the slippery slope: Regardless of what you do today, people are going to accuse you of some form of censorship or the other. This is your house. This is your creation. They are squatters here. If they don't abide by the rules, it is your prerogative to grab them by the scuff and deport them. You have a hate based network called the "chimpire" which is a coagulation of the various hate subs on this website.

This is the Chimpire: /r/Apefrica /r/apewrangling /r/BlackCrime /r/BlackFathers /r/BlackHusbands /r/chicongo /r/ChimpireMETA /r/ChimpireOfftopic /r/chimpmusic /r/Chimpout /r/Detoilet /r/didntdonuffins /r/funnyniggers /r/gibsmedat /r/GreatApes /r/JustBlackGirlThings /r/muhdick /r/N1GGERS /r/NegroFree /r/NiggerCartoons /r/NiggerDocumentaries /r/NiggerDrama /r/NiggerFacts /r/niggerhistorymonth /r/NiggerMythology /r/NiggersGIFs /r/NiggersNews /r/niggerspics /r/niggersstories /r/NiggersTIL /r/niggervideos /r/niglets /r/RacistNiggers /r/ShitNiggersSay /r/teenapers /r/TheRacistRedPill /r/TNB /r/TrayvonMartin /r/USBlackCulture /r/WatchNiggersDie /r/WorldStarHP /r/WTFniggers

Reddit has been called a fertile ground for recruitment by literal nazi's. Coontown currently has activity rivalling stromfront which since its founding in 1995 by a former Alabama Klan leader. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls reddit “a worse black hole of violent racism than Stormfront,” documenting at least 46 active subreddits devoted to white supremacy like /r/CoonTown.

Will banning hate subs solve the problem? No. But it's a goddamn good place to start. These hateful hives have lost the privilege accorded to them by your complacence and an atlas shrugged musical version of free speech. They do not deserve to have a platform of hate in the form of Reddit. The whole world is watching you at this moment. So where do we go from here? What question do you think you will be asked other than this? The man is here and that man is you.

It used to be folk wisdom to cut the head off a snake and burn the wound to prevent it from growing back. The days of the wild west have come and gone. It was funny. The frenzy. The fiends. The fire and brimstone. You're the new sheriff. As the media would have it, the default reddit face is someone in a klan hood who hates women and supports pedophilia in some form or the other. It is an unfortunate stereotype that seems to be passed around as some sort of penance for "free speech".

It is unfair to the straight white males who have no hand in promoting such an outlook. It is unfair to the women and minorities looking for a place to have enriching discussions. It is unfair to you and your team of admins to be denigrated relentlessly. So I put it to you once more...

Steve, Alexis, are you going to push the button?

[–]zaikanekochan 57ポイント58ポイント  (8子コメント)

What will the process be for determining what is “offensive” and what is not?

Will these rules be clearly laid out for users to understand?

If something is deemed “offensive,” but is consensual (such as BDSM), will it be subject to removal?

Have any specific subs already been subject to discussion of removal, and if so, have Admins decided on which subs will be eliminated?

How do you envision “open and honest discussion” happening on controversial issues if content being deemed “offensive” is removed? If “offensive” subs are removed, do you foresee an influx of now rule-breaking users flooding otherwise rule-abiding subs?

What is your favorite Metallica album, and why is it “Master of Puppets?”

There has also been mention of allowing [deleted] messages to be seen, how would these be handled in terms of containing “offensive” content?

Will anything be done regarding inactive “squatter” mods, specifically allowing their removal on large subs?

[–]Vmoney1337 29ポイント30ポイント  (3子コメント)

I guess I'll ask the question that everyone else wants to hear the answer to: What subreddits are you considering banning, and what would be your basis for doing so?

[–]justcool393 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi everyone answering these questions. I have a "few" questions that I, like probably most of reddit would like answers to. Like a recent AMA I asked questions in, the bold will be the meat of the question, and the non-bolded will be context. If you don't know an answer to a question, say so, and do so directly! Honesty is very much appreciated. With that said, here goes.

Content Policy

  1. What is the policy regarding content that has distasteful speech, but not harassing? Some subreddits have been known to harbor ideologies such as Nazism or racist ones. Are users, and by extension subreddits, allowed to behave in this way, or will this be banned or censored?

  2. What is the policy regarding, well, these subreddits? These subreddits are infamous on reddit as a whole. These usually come up during AskReddit threads of "where would you not go" or whenever distasteful subreddits are mentioned.

  3. What actually is the harassment policy? Yes, I know the definition that's practically copypasta from the announcement, but could we have examples? You don't have to define a hard rule, in fact, it'd probably be best if there was a little subjectivity to avoid lawyering, but it'd be helpful to have an example.

  4. What are your thoughts on some people's interpretation of the rules as becoming a safe-space? A vocal group of redditors interpreted the new harassment rules as this, and as such are not happy about it. I personally didn't read the rules that way, but I can see how it may be interpreted that way.

  5. Do you have any plans to update the rules page? It, at the moment, has 6 rules, and the only one that seems to even address the harassment policy is rule 5, which is at best reaching in regards to it.

  6. What is the best way to report harassment? For example, should we use /r/reddit.com's modmail or the contact@reddit.com email? How long should we wait before bumping a modmail, for example? 6. Who is allowed to report harassment? Say I'm a moderator, and decide to check a user's history and see they've followed around another user to 20 different subreddits posting the same thing or whatnot. Should I report it to the admins?

Brigading

  1. In regards to subreddits for mocking another group, what is the policy on them? Subreddits that highlight other places being stupid or whatever, such as /r/ShitRedditSays, /r/SRSsucks, the "Badpire", /r/Buttcoin or pretty much any sub dedicated to mocking people frequently brigade each other and other places on reddit. SRS has gone out of it's way to harass in the past, and while bans may not be applied retroactively, some have recently said they've gotten death threats after being linked to from there.

  2. What are the current plans to address brigading? Will reddit ever support NP (and maybe implement it) or implement another way to curb brigading? This would solve very many problems in regards to meta subreddits.

    1. Is this a good definition of brigading, and if not, what is it? Many mods and users can't give a good explanation of it at the moment of what constitutes it. This forces them to resort to in SubredditDrama's case, banning voting or commenting altogether in linked threads, or in ShitRedditSays' case, not do anything at all.

Related

  1. What is spam? Like yes, we know what obvious spam is, but there have been a number of instances in the past where good content creators have been banned for submitting their content.
  2. Regarding the "Neither Alexis or I created reddit to be a bastion of free speech" comment, how do you feel about this, this, this or this? I do get that opinions change and that I could shit turds that could search reddit better than it does right now, but it's not hard to see that you said on multiple occasions, especially during the /r/creepshots debacle, even with the literal words "bastion of free speech".
  3. How do you plan to implement the new policy? If the policy is substantially more restrictive, such as combating racism or whatnot, I think you'll have a problem in the long run, because there is just way too much content on reddit, and it will inevitably be applied very inconsistently. Many subreddits have popped back up under different names after being banned.
  4. Did you already set the policy before you started the AMA, and if so, what was the point of it? It seems like from the announcement, you had already made up your mind about the policy regarding content on reddit, and this has made some people understandably upset.
  5. Do you have anything else to say regarding the recent events? I know this has been stressful, but reddit is a cool place and a lot of people use it to share neat (sometimes untrue, but whatever) experiences and whatnot. I don't think the vast majority of people want reddit to implode on itself, but some of the recent decisions and remarks made by the admin team (and former team to be quite honest) are quite concerning.

[–]davidreiss666 40ポイント41ポイント  (26子コメント)

The best run subreddit communities are the ones that have mod-teams that enforce the rules and don't allow any hate-speech and other bullshit.

For example, /r/Science does not allow bullshit opinions that aren't scientifically valid. Either as submissions or comments. So, they will ban you for creationism, anti-vaccine BS and climate change denial as these are all views that are backed by all the world scientific community. In short, they want everyone to know that /r/Science is scientifically accurate. The same goes for other science based communties on Reddit such as /r/AskScience and /r/Biology.

Likewise, /r/History and other history-based subredits like /r/HistoryPorn, /r/AskHistorians and /r/BadHistory don't allow history-denial. So, things like Holocaust denial, Lost Cause of the Confederacy propaganda, Ancient Aliens crap, Neo Nazis, White Supremacy and other total bullshit views will get you banned.

There is a large problem with hate-based groups that are trying to colonize (their word) Reddit in their attempt to spread their views. Hate based groups like: White Supremacists, Neo Nazis, Skinheads, Holocaust Deniers, Extreme Misogynists, Homophobes, Racists who view all Muslims as terrorists, Extreme Racists, etc. It's a large number of groups, and there is a massive amount of overlap between these subgroups.

These radical nuts run subreddits like: /r/CoonTown, r/GreatApes, /r/European, /r/Holocaust (holocaust deniers), /r/TheRedPill, /r/KotakuInAction, etc.

Right now, /r/CoonTown almost gets as much traffic as stormfront.org. And that's not including the traffic from all the other racist shithole subreddits. That spike in traffic is the Dylan Roof shooting, and the extra traffic seems to have staying power considering they picked up 4,000 subscribers in two days and another 1k at least since.

If they don't take care of it, reddit will soon have the dubious honor of being the most active white supremacist forum on the the Internet.

Hate Speech should not be a profit center for Reddit, or any other corporation. If the admins don't want to take the lead on this, then hopefully one or more media outlets will start pick up on it and force the Admins to deal with it.

Another point that largely gets ignored in this debate: Non-racists generally don't want to hang out with racists. Racist and hate-group users generally strive to drive out the non-racist users.

Everybody has a story about the racist family member that they only see once a year at some family gathering, and we all dread running into that family member. We really don't want to hang out, even for a short amount of time, with that person. Well, when it comes to family we make sacrifices, so we (1) try and only talk about the weather or sports with them and (2) are very thankful it's for only one-hour a year. But when it comes to non-family, you don't make the same allowances. We just cut those people out of our lives.

Bad users will drive out good users. And then more bad users will be attracted to this site. And it will become a bad-user reinforcement-cycle with more and more bad users driving out, they hope, all the good users. These groups even know this, and count on the non-racists leaving. It's why they use terms like Colonizing, as they are actively attempted to take the entire site over. That is their goal. They are not interested in undirected discussion with anyone. They want to control the narrative and how any discussion happens. They are actively trying to turn young people who aren't already racist bigots into more racist bigots. If you allow them to run wild, 90% of the good users will leave. And what's left will simply be a Storm Front members wet dream.

Paul Graham mentions this issue with bad users in this essay.

Other web sites like Twitter, Facebook and Google+ have taken to dealing with racist hate groups. It's high time that Reddit did the same.

I also want to address the BS that some limits on free speech are inherently bad. Because the only country that really thinks free speech means "Anything Goes, including extreme bigotry" is the United States. But other nations, such as Germany, France, the UK, Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Italy, etc. place some limits on "Free Speech" via bans on things like Holocaust denial. Now..... I'm sorry, but you can't tell me Germany or Canada is any less free than the United States. The reason the Germans don't allow open-Nazis into the political debate in their country is that they tried it once. It ended badly.

In short, you don't allow these people a foot hold because their goal is to make Reddit into a hate-propaganda site. Hopefully the admins are finally going to do something about these groups. It's high time the admins took action.

[–]MrCaboose96[🍰] 24ポイント25ポイント  (2子コメント)

Mr Huffman,

First off, thank you for doing this AMA. On Tuesday, you said:

Neither Alexis nor I created reddit to be a bastion of free speech, but rather as a place where open and honest discussion can happen[...]

In this Forbes article from 2012, Alexis responds to a question about what the founding fathers would have thought of Reddit by saying, "A bastion of free speech on the World Wide Web? I bet they would like it."

Can you please explain the disparity between these two comments?

Thank you.

[–]Warlizard 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

In Ellen Pao's op-ed in the Washington Post today, she said "But to attract more mainstream audiences and bring in the big-budget advertisers, you must hide or remove the ugly."

How much of the push toward removing "ugly" elements of Reddit comes from the motivation to monetize Reddit?

EDIT: "Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)" -- This is troubling because although it seems reasonable on the surface, in practice, there are people who scream harassment when any criticism is levied against them. How will you determine what constitutes harassment?

[–]throwawaytiffany 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

Are all DMCA takedowns posted to /r/ChillingEffects? If yes, why is this one missing? If no, why the change from the policy announced very recently? http://www.reddit.com/r/Roadcam/comments/38g72g/c/cruy2qt

[–]krispykrackers[A] 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

The tool we currently use for DMCA takedowns has evolved a bit internally to take down things like personal information. We need to adapt that tool to be much more clear on what is a DMCA takedown and what is not, as well as develop better internal policies on when that should be used, since it does affect user generated content.

[–]DEATH-BY-CIRCLEJERK 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi Steve,

I think this is a question I've not seen asked or addressed anywhere on reddit before, so I hope this is a good contribution to this AMA and discussion.

Do you see an issue with more and more default subreddits configuring their automoderator to automatically remove comments from users who have just joined? On numerous occasions a friend or family member has created an account after me telling them about reddit only to find that when I go to their overview page and follow the permalink to their actual comments that it is missing. I presume moderators are doing this to mitigate trolls or something but I think it might become a systemic problem if all of the defaults move in this direction. How is anyone going to be able to get enough karma to get out of the automod filter if none of their comments get seen?

Thanks.

[–]FlyingPeacock 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

In your earlier post you said, “Neither Alexis nor I created reddit to be a bastion of free speech…” You also went on to say, “We as a community need to decide together what our values are”. Since free speech is a value that by and large is represented throughout the community, how do you plan to reconcile this? Will we only get free speech when it is convenient for the reddit admin and marketing teams? I understand that threats are not covered under free speech, but where is the line? People don’t have a right to not be offended. Is that your goal for reddit?

[–]tacomotif 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

"We understand that this might make some of you worried about the slippery slope from banning one specific type of content to banning other types of content. We're concerned about that too, and do not make this policy change lightly or without careful deliberation. We will tirelessly defend the right to freely share information on reddit in any way we can, even if it is offensive or discusses something that may be illegal... We remain committed to protecting reddit as an open platform." - Reddit 2012

So I'm wondering, do words simply not mean anything anymore /u/spez or is Reddit changing their minds on this issue? Is this move in the pure interest of profitability? I guess thats fine, this is a business after all, but why not at least be honest with us instead of saying that no one intended for reddit to be an open platform. That honestly sounds like revisionist history, the comment you made the other day where you completely contradicted Alexis and Yishan. I feel the biggest insult to people is pretending that the past didn't happen, and if you guys leveled with people in an open and honest way, there would be less of a backlash, but I guess reddit is going in the opposite direction of anything open and honest.

So reddit is no longer to be a free and open exchange of ideas, as is the right of The Board of Directors to dictate and yes men to implement, but honestly, where does it end, who is next? Police discussions get pretty heated and hateful, pluto planet status discussions get out of control, feminists go flying off the rails, circumcision discussions can get waaaay out of hand too; are any of these things going to be snipped in the pud?! Its easy to get rid of the unpopular people, no one will cry for them, but if its so easy for y'all to throw away these values in the face of potential profitability, where will that end? Have fun with the monetized corporate platform I guess.

I don't hate Ellen /u/ekjp Pao, if the smug shitposting of /u/yishan is to be beliebed, then she is our saviour and white knight in shining armor. Shes even kinda cute in an androgynous way! Supposedly /u/kn0thing is responsible for a lot of the bad stuff people blamed on her, like the firing of /u/chooter . I thought the vitriol was over the top and insane, but I understand how those people felt. They had only heard bad things about her past, and no one really knew where the moves were coming from, so they lashed out, and there was no communication whatsoever from anyone at reddit to explain what was going on. Not that talking to an angry mob is really all that helpful, to be fair. Its obvious now that you guys got a PR firm helping you out with all of this and coordinating people's movements. I guess the final decisions are made and everything will swing around to the green money jungle beat. It must be so easy to say all those lofty and principled things and then just sell everything out when cash is sitting on the table.

Congratulations, you guys won, and anyone who cares about open and honest dicussions has lost. I guess you all got what you wanted and the gravy train is getting ready to leave the station. Was it all a lie to just get to this point, where the inconvenient people can be brushed aside like trash? I really hope that isn't what is happening here.

When everything is said and done and we move on to voat and 8chan, I really hope you guys make an honest effort to communicate with the mods and the users of this site and maintain that effort. People deserve an open and honest conversation, even if you don't wanna give it to them.

[–]urdle 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hello /u/spez, I thought about posting a long question about reddit's change of heart when it comes to free speech rather I have decided against it.

In your previous post, you claimed we as a community need to decide what our values are. I propose this: Honesty.

So my questions are this:

is reddit still in the red?

If so, who is paying the bills?

And are these changes prompted by them?

Thank you.

[–]MovkeyB 75ポイント76ポイント  (30子コメント)

As a black man, I came to Reddit because it was a bastion of free speech. It was a place where I could come and be judged on the quality of what I had to say - not the person who said it. It was a place where new ideas could be born, because nobody was afraid of expressing their honest thoughts, opinions, and theories. From what I've seen, SJWs want to destroy that. They care more about who you are than what you say, and if you're not a trans-woman genderqueer attack helicoptor feminist, your ideas don't count.

As a black man, I hate /r/coontown , but I would defend to my death their right to speak freely. /u/spez, What will you do to ensure that reddit remains a free and open platform for everyone?

[–]amaperson1234 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's been said that you are going to remove the more cancerous subreddits. I'm curious as to whether ShitRedditSays will be included among this category. On the face of it, a place where reprehensible comments are pointed out, right?

It must have been two years ago now when shit hit the fan and I found a link to a thread where one redditor, clearly in a distressed state, had made a post alluding to their future suicide. Now, of course, the vast majority of responses were what you would expect from most humans. Compassionate and sincere posts offering this person help and support. Who on earth would tell a person in this condition to kill themselves? Or worse, tell them the world would be better off without them? Enter ShitRedditSays.

The comments made towards this person by a significant portion of people are among the most disturbing things I have ever seen on this site. It was the sort of thing I would expect to see on SRS, as a showcase of how awful Reddit is. So, I went to the sub to see if they were talking about it. They were, but not in the way I had expected. They were bragging. They were laughing. They were celebrating. The suicidal person in question was affiliated with the MRA sub, something that SRS greatly opposes. So much so, they brigaded the thread the person had posted in, and told them to kill themselves. Repeatedly told them. And when the person did, they were happy. Because, to them, this was a war. And anything was acceptable. Telling a suicidal person to kill themselves was perfectly fine. That is how lacking in perspective many of these people are.

Much of what was said was deleted shortly afterwards so it would not be visible anymore. Well, almost all of it. The below is only a tiny fraction of what was said. There was a lot worse.

http://i.imgur.com/ehQNU.png

http://i.imgur.com/4qMV8.png

http://i.imgur.com/nSCSV.png

I had always thought SRS was merely a sub dedicated to showcasing the darker side of this site. A way of promoting change, but nothing malicious. I messaged one of the mods about what had happened expecting them to condemn the behavior, but instead they bragged about it like some sort of psychopath. It was one of the most fucked up conversations I have ever had. Further examination of the sub and their mods clearly showed that this is a group of people who are in fact quite hateful. Many of the mods displayed blatant prejudices against various groups.

And the media doesn't show this side of SRS, for whatever reason. Possibly out of laziness or perhaps because SRS deletes the vast majority of their more shameful history. We hear about how they got rid of the disgusting Jailbait sub, something that I (and I'm sure many others) was very happy about. But we never hear about the racism, sexism or harassment that they so frequently partake in. So, on the face of it. SRS is this progressive humanitarian group that Reddit can showcase as an example of how the site is not just a cesspit of evil. Am I right?

And that's how it appears to many users of the sub too. Young teenagers in many cases. Progressive, well meaning individuals who want to highlight the unsavory things that are said throughout this site. Except we know now, that those controlling SRS and many of their more active members have much more sinister intentions than that. Clearly, they have a dangerous influence over young and impressionable people, who are unaware of these true intentions.

There is also a dark side, communities whose purpose is reprehensible, and we don’t have any obligation to support them. And we also believe that some communities currently on the platform should not be here at all.

My questions - Is the above statement genuine? Will ShitRedditSays be removed like the rest of the cancerous subreddits?

Yes or No? The answer to both questions is the same.

[–]MMZephyr 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

  1. If a subreddit like /r/fatpeoplehate was banned, why aren't similar ones like /r/punchablefaces banned?

  2. Now that you've decided to take on the responsibility of making speech safe on reddit, how will you keep up with the hydra-effect of online users? (Eg. How do you keep up with harassment if users can just make a new account and keep going?)

  3. Why did you say reddit isn't meant to be a bastion of free speech, when you used to say the exact opposite?

  4. What do you have against free speech? Hasn't it gotten the US pretty far, despite the lame people who abuse free speech?

  5. How do you determine if an entire subreddit should be banned for an instance of harassment, rather than the individual users involved? If a moderator is involved, why not ban them instead of the entire subreddit?

[–]GodOfAtheism 63ポイント64ポイント  (19子コメント)

What about SRS?

[–]SirYodah 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can you please speak on why real members are still being shadowbanned, even after you claimed that they never should be?

For reference: https://np.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3dd954/censorship_mod_of_rneofag_shadowbanned_for_asking/

Note: I'm not involved in any of the communities represented in the link, I found it on /r/all yesterday and want to know the reason why people are still being shadowbanned.

[–]EhsAreEhs -5ポイント-4ポイント  (6子コメント)

How does it feel to know that the website you co-founded is being used by some of the largest hate-groups on the internet? How do the other ~100 employees of Reddit feel about profiting off hate? Is this ever discussed at company meetings?

Just to be clear I'm not talking about shitty subs like /r/RapingWomen /r/BeatingCripples, /r/PhilosophyOfRape or even /r/CandidFashionPolice (which is a blatantly re-branded /r/CreepShots).

There are actual organized hate groups operating on Reddit. The worst being /r/CoonTown, part of "The Chimpire" which have been extensively written up by the SPLC. The total traffic to this network of hate subs dwarfs more old-fashioned hate websites like Stormfront. Legacy white power websites like The Daily Stormer are taking notice and their members are flocking to Reddit to expand their movements: "Reddit is Fertile Ground for Recruitment".

Racism isn't the only issue, Reddit has a problem with groups targeting women. /r/MensRights have been identified by the SPLC as a misogynist group. Their sidebar links to the notorious A Voice For Men website run by Paul "Bash a Violent Bitch Month" Elam. Reddit also hosts the main hub of the Gamer Gate campaign at /r/KotakuInaction, which has been described by the New York Times as "a campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry". Not to mention /r/TheRedPill, a sub dedicated to sharing strategies for date-rape and spousal abuse (Salon article).

[–]Miserable_Wrongdoer 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you're thinking of banning places like /r/coontown I have the following questions for you:

Will /r/atheism be banned for encouraging it's members to disrespect Islam by drawing the Prophet Muhammad and making offensive statements towards people of Faith?

Will /r/childfree be banned for being linked in the murder of a child and offensive statements towards children?

Will /r/anarchism be banned for calling for the violent overthrow of government and violence against the wealthy?

Will porn subreddits be banned for continuing the objectification of women?

Will subreddits like /r/killingwomen be banned?

These questions, /u/spez are entirely rhetorical.

The ultimate question is if you're willing to ban some communities because their content is offensive to some people where do you draw the line?

[–]ImAKidImASquid 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

So if reddit is not a bastion of free speech then what about all this?

(Credit to /r/BoFS)

[–]Honestly_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks for doing this AMA. A couple of concerns:

Have the admins/ex-CEOs collectively decided that the best way to move forward is to introduce WWE-style drama with these public spats between Yishan, Ellen Pao, kn0thing, etc?

It's starting to harken back to when Vince McMahon stopped pretending to be a neutral announcer and became his own character/villain. Throw in the power mods who thrive in creating drama and we now have what's starting to feel like the SuperStars of Redditing.

But seriously: with all the focus on admin drama, the relatively few terrible subs, the issues held by some mods, and those associated distractions it's becoming a headache for those of us who run and those who simply enjoy the normal, uncontroversial, successfully operating communities hosted on reddit. Is the focus of the site on producing varied, interesting content for the 160m monthly visitors or arguing with the less than 1% who participate in these silly drama-fests?

Do those in charge of reddit HQ even know what reddit is good at doing anymore?

How would you define what reddit is good at doing?

For example: In all of this, the major sports subs (/r/NFL, /r/NBA, /r/hockey, /r/CFB, et al) are some of the best communities hosted on the site. They have all done their best to stay out of the outside drama (none went private) while thriving because they manage to make vast amounts of rival fans come together without degrading into the cesspits seen on comment sections sports websites elsewhere. They all continue to host their own AMAs without problem, heck /r/CFB has just managed to get credentialed as a media organization by several athletic conferences. They're all doing it based on the reddit platform you helped create, as independent communities hosted on reddit. Is that still the emphasis? Will reddit HQ push harder to control that aspect of the narrative? Some of us are tired of being dragged along by these spats and the terrible PR they generate for all of us whether our subs are involved or not.

[–]almightybob1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hello Steve.

You said the other day that "Neither Alexis nor I created reddit to be a bastion of free speech". As you probably are aware by now, reddit remembers differently. Here are just a few of my favourite quotes, articles and comments which demonstrate that reddit has in fact long trumpeted itself as just that - a bastion of free speech.

A reddit ad, uploaded March 2007:

Save freedom of speech - use reddit.com.

You, Steve Huffman, on why reddit hasn't degenerated into Digg, 2008:

I suspect that it's because we respect our users (at least the ones who return the favor), are honest, and don't censor content.

You, Steve Huffman, 2009:

We've been accused of censoring since day one, and we have a long track record of not doing so.

Then-General Manager Erik Martin, 2012:

We're a free speech site with very few exceptions (mostly personal info) and having to stomach occasional troll reddit like picsofdeadkids or morally quesitonable reddits like jailbait are part of the price of free speech on a site like this.

reddit blogpost, 2012 (this one is my favourite):

At reddit we care deeply about not imposing ours or anyone elses’ opinions on how people use the reddit platform. We are adamant about not limiting the ability to use the reddit platform even when we do not ourselves agree with or condone a specific use.

[...]

We understand that this might make some of you worried about the slippery slope from banning one specific type of content to banning other types of content. We're concerned about that too, and do not make this policy change lightly or without careful deliberation. We will tirelessly defend the right to freely share information on reddit in any way we can, even if it is offensive or discusses something that may be illegal.

Then-CEO Yishan Wong, October 2012:

We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits. We will not ban legal content even if we find it odious or if we personally condemn it.

reddit's core values, May 2015:

  • Allow freedom of expression.

  • Be stewards, not dictators. The community owns itself.

And of course (do I even need to add it?) Alexis Ohanian literally calling reddit a bastion of free speech, February 2012. Now with bonus Google+ post saying how proud he is of that quote!

There are many more examples, from yourself and other key figures at reddit (including Alexis), confirming that reddit has promoted itself as a centre of free speech, and that this belief was and is widespread amongst the corporate culture of reddit. If you want to read more, check out the new subreddit /r/BoFS (Bastion of Free Speech), which gathered all these examples in less than two days.

So now that you've had time to plan your response to the accusations of hypocrisy, my question is this: who do you think you are fooling Steve?

[–]RedxSmoke 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

/u/spez and /u/kn0thing following this AMA

http://i.imgur.com/6T7WNTW.gifv

[–]lauchs 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

given how overwhelmingly redditors have opposed censorship (in the announcement post, when sorting by top, the 42nd post is arguably the first neutral one, and in default subs, anything criticizing this move has shot to the top), how do you think banning subreddits will go? Is the vote counting mechanism flawed, or do you expect those who oppose banning subreddits to accept it? If the voters leave, is the hope that lurkers to step up and vote, comment and contribute?

[–]KaliYugaz 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks for doing this AMA, Mr. Huffman. I'm going to go ahead and ask a primarily theoretical question here: What exactly is your comprehensive, coherent vision for what you want this site to be?

The admins seem to be finally aware now, at least, that Rousseau was Wrong, people are not inherently good when allowed to be absolutely free, and it is not possible for Reddit to exist as a lawless scoundrel infested free-for-all and still be useable for any constructive purpose. So far that's a great start, you've told us what you don't want Reddit to be like. But more importantly, you haven't told us what you do want Reddit to be, and how that theoretical vision will determine your content policy moving forwards.

What, in your opinion, is the basic principle or point of Reddit? The basic point of Western governments is to ensure individual liberty, equality, and self governance for their citizens. The basic point of free markets is to distribute and allocate resources efficiently. Similarly what is the point of this site?

Do you just want something that can be easily monetized? If so, then you would have to ban not just the hate but also all the politics and the controversial stuff and the metasphere and the less tasteful porn, place the site under highly centralized control, emphasize the defaults and large subs, and thereby convert Reddit into a fluff click bait and cat picture factory like Buzzfeed. It's a tried and true business model by now.

Or would you rather Reddit be known primarily as a place for high-level, sophisticated discussion, expression, and learning about science, academics, art, media, and politics? If that's what you want, then you absolutely must foster the proper site wide environment to encourage quality expression and discussion. Stuff like hate speech, disruption, incivility, and bullying certainly cannot be allowed, since they have a chilling effect on artistic expression and on open and rational discourse. Furthermore, mods will need strong tools to remove content that is deemed by experts to be factually incorrect beyond reasonable doubt. Experts themselves will have to be encouraged to join the site in order to enrich it.

Or do you want Reddit to be a libertarian "place for communities" where anyone can make a sub and do whatever they want with it? If that's the case, then you will have to put stringent rules in place to protect the fundamental principle of the absolute sovereignty of a subreddit's mods and subscribers over their subreddit, which would entail strictly enforcing brigading control, strengthening mod tools for subreddit management, and playing an active role in negotiating peace between sub communities that hate each other. The admins also can't violate the basic principle of sovereignty by banning or regulating communities if they're just sharing offensive content amongst themselves, which means that a certain level of nastiness (though not the blatant hate group evangelism that we have now) would have to be tolerated and strictly contained to its own space.

I've just given you 3 distinct visions for the site that I came up with myself (personally, I hate the 1st, favor the 2nd, and don't mind the 3rd). Now I want to hear what ideas you have, in similar form and in as much detail as possible.

[–]Stink_Snake 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

First off why is the first priority about content policy and not all the other MASSIVE problems with Reddit? There is 50 MILLION in the bank. SPEND IT. I don’t like having to hit F5 to pay my respects to Reddit’s 503 error.

How are all your promises given to the mods going? Your lead engineer just quit because she did not believe she “could deliver on promises being made to the community.” Ayyy lmao, that doesn’t bode well. Can you be certain that you will hit your target dates?

More importantly why is this not a power grab? You are asking the users how Reddit should wield more power.

Remember when the US government said, “The vast majority of Americans are law abiding good people we need some new tools though for those few folks that wish due harm to our communities and bring terrorism to our soil. Don’t worry folks ‘cus if you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.”

We gave our government more power and look how well that worked. This feels the same.

While I find the oft-mentioned subreddits that would be banned under new content rules vile; I disagree with Reddit wielding any more power. Why? Reddit tends to fuck things up. Rules are have been applied arbitrarily in the past; if we even know what the rules are in the first place. Could we clear that up first?

From what I see, Reddit is embarking on a journey of sanitize and monetize. First step is to sanitize the subreddits but how far will it go in order to get ad revenue Reddit needs to make its stockholders happy?

Usernames? Never fun when a news story goes something like, “ According to reddit user, cum_on_her_titties.” What is to stop future rules on comments? Soon we could have a content team removing comments.

I fear our community has set us in its haste down a dark rode. A rode in which our up vote buttons will become Doritos and Downvote Mountain Dew. A rode where we can all enjoy the site being wrapped in Suicide Squad banners. We did it Reddit!

[–]Starwhisperer 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

​Hi Admins!

I think it will be helpful in this new chapter of Reddit to define for the average redditor what you mean by free speech. What comes to mind when you think of free speech. What is its core ideals and how and how aren't redditors abiding by it? Plus, what policies are you hoping to implement to guide the community in that direction?

A clear notion of this will be super helpful. Because some who see the word "free" take it to mean that anything goes, no consequences nor judgement, just protection of their extremely bullying, harassing, morally reprehensible, and socially backwards viewpoints. Usually targeted outwards to groups that have historically been "othered" in some way. And then others seem to believe that by virtue of free speech they ought to defend this character.

From what it seems like, admins' usage of "free speech" was originally intended to signify more of an open, honest discussion where ideas can be shared in a welcoming environment (please correct me if I'm wrong though). Although, at times admins have been quite lenient and inconsistent with its interpretation to avoid having to make difficult decisions and as ​​some sort of branding tool​ for the site​. As a result, we are left​ with ​ the Reddit we see today. A website ​in which no reasonable person would happily recommend as the site has gotten ​entirely too ​out of hand​. Plus, unrestricted, Reddit has had lots of time to build and breed a Reddit community ​that ​no one wants to be publicly seen as part of. In fact, the continued hesitancy to enact change is making change more difficult in the long run. Your conscious knows the most sensible course of action to ​solve these issues​​ moving forward.

And to other redditors who hold this warped armchair freeology, in the real world, in any professional, friendly, or civil environment, hateful speech, which is currently being spread so freely here, has no place and is instantly removed by those who hold positions of power and socially ostracized. Your "right" to an opinion does not override someone's right to not be attacked and to not be exposed to harmful, illogical viewpoints directed towards them, never to you. Plus, just to make it clear, your opinion can and will be used against you. Life has always been like that. No one is expected to tolerate your intolerance. No one should have to respect your disrespect. It doesn't work like that.

Anyway, you guys are admins. You made this site. I think it's about time you start moderating its content. You guys are the ultimate mods, after all. You re-setting the rules and clarifying the purpose of this site is the first step to get it back on track to your vision. Don't let others who this site was never designed for ruin it for everyone, especially you.

Thanks!

[–]NetWWWWWWWWWWWorking 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

What exactly does this entail? Laying out the rules for subreddits is a good step, but is this indicative of a larger change?

[–]PeBeFri -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Similar to NSFW, another type of content that is difficult to define, but you know it when you see it, is the content that violates a common sense of decency.

And whose code of decency would be the basis for this new classification?

I have enjoyed this website for many years now. It has been superb as a collection of communities where news, ideas, and interesting new things on the Internet can be shared. And its success is owed largely to its reputation as a space where free expression can thrive.

But the structural integrity of Reddit is under threat. It has been for many years. And it's not from those who engage in hate speech. It's from another community of Redditors, one which simultaneously denounces and profits from the site's hands-off policy towards its users. Their most problematic community is /r/shitredditsays, and they are unofficially known as social justice warriors.

Here is my stance on this latest Reddit controversy in a nutshell:

I would rather use a website populated by racists and bigots than by social justice warriors.

Say what you will about those who frequent the hate subreddits. At least they only want their voice to be heard, even though what they say may be unpalatable. By contrast, social justice warriors aim to suppress the voice of others. Only one of these groups pose a threat to a free and open marketplace of ideas.

It is understandable that you would wish to restrict hate speech, either for moral reasons or to placate potential advertisers. But long before you ever discussed the censorship of hate speech on your site, you strongly opposed the actions of vote manipulation, of which there is substantial evidence of guilt by SRS.

Here is my suggestion for you, to avoid hypocrisy:

If you censor the hate subreddits, you must censor /r/shitredditsays as well.

If you do not comply, I will cease my regular activity here, migrating my presence to Voat and other competitors that may arise. I will not purchase Reddit Gold, for myself or anyone else. And I will use ad-blocking software when visiting your site.

I have no moral qualms about this. Reddit may no longer call itself a "bastion of free speech," but it still advertises itself as a place where one can make their voice heard without being subjected to downvote brigades, and would be given equal footing with the censorious. If you shut down subreddits for their ideas and not others for their behavior, you would be guilty of false advertising.

[–]SUSAN_IS_A_BITCH 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

TLDR: How is the Reddit administration planning to improve their communication with users about your policies?

Over the last year there have been a number of moments where top employees have dropped the ball when it came to talking with users about Reddit's direction:

I'm sure other users have other examples, but these are the ones that have stuck with me. I intentionally left out the announcement of the /r/fatpeoplehate ban because I thought it was clear why those subreddits were being banned, though admittedly many users were confused about the new policy and it quickly became another mess.

I think this AMA is a good first step toward better communication with the user base, but only if your responses are as direct and clear as they once were.

I wish I didn't have to fear the Announcements' comments section like Jabba the Hutt's janitor fears the bathroom.

[–]_pancaste_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can you address the Forbes article where Alexis referred to reddit as a "bastion of free speech"? What's caused the shift in reddit's policy from uninhibited discussion to "safe" topics only?

[–]RamonaLittle 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

(2 of 6. I have multiple questions, which I'm posting individually so people can upvote/downvote individually.)

Will the new policy clarify whether/when/how users are allowed to encourage suicide?

As far as the existing policy, I asked for clarification and didn't get a reply. Then I asked again and didn't get a reply. Then I asked a third time and got a reply which I think doesn't make much sense, and the admins didn't reply to my follow-up message. Here is the conversation in full:

me to /r/reddit.com/:

I just saw this screencap. LordVinyl says that telling other users to kill themselves isn't harassment. Whether or not it's harassment, I've been assuming that advocating suicide is against reddit's user agreement, which says "Keep Everyone Safe: You agree to not intentionally jeopardize the health and safety of others or yourself." and "Do Not Incite Harm: You agree not to encourage harm against people."

Can you please advise: is it a violation of reddit rules to tell another redditor to kill themself?

Thank you for your time.

Ocrasorm: It depends on the context. If someone tells a user to kill themselves on a subreddit dealing with suicidal users we will take action.

If a user is in an argument on a random subreddit and tells them to kill themselves we would not ban someone for that. Sure it is a stupid thing to say but not necessarily jeoprdizing health and safety.

me: Thanks. Just to be clear -- you're saying that "kill yourself" isn't "inciting harm" unless it's "on a subreddit dealing with suicidal users," correct?

If that's the policy, I'll abide by it, but I don't think it makes much sense. There's no reason to assume that people with suicidal feelings are only posting on suicide-related subreddits.

If a user routinely tells everyone to kill themselves (and follows up with "I'm serious" and "do it"), all over reddit, that's OK, as long as he doesn't say it in subreddits that are explicitly suicide-related, correct? If one of their targets wound up killing himself, and their parents sued reddit, you personally would testify under oath that no rules were broken?

[I never got a reply to this.]

[–]seamslegit 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yesterday you said that Reddit would be creating policies and tools for removing:

more offensive and obscene content

I get that there is plenty of disturbing and reprehensible content on reddit but isn't this very subjective? I work in medicine and have no problems seeing pictures of surgeries while others might find this obscene. I find plenty of content on r/republican an d r/democrats to be disgusting. Others probably find religious( r/christianity or r/atheism), pornography (r/gonewild r/nsfw) and shock (r/wtf) subs to be offensive and obscene. The only way to find common ground values for the majority is to dumb down reddit to the point that is a whitewashed disnyesque political correct shell of its former self. Why do you think taking the censorship route of banning subs and limiting free speech is better than improving the tools to view and participate in those areas of reddit they want to be a part of?

[–]darthandroid 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Neither Alexis nor I created reddit to be a bastion of free speech, but rather as a place where open and honest discussion can happen

Can you provide any real-world example where censorship and "open and honest discussion" are not mutually exclusive?

How can open and honest discussion happen when there are subjective rules about who can be silenced and who cannot? While I would argue that Reddit is a better place without the specific subreddits that were banned, I would also argue that Reddit is a worse place when a small group of people (the admins) are making subjective decisions about what can and can't be talked about. It's very much about the principle of the matter.

These are very complicated issues, and we are putting a lot of thought into it.

Exactly; These are very complicated issues, and the problem is that the community does not seem to trust you to make the correct decision. Frankly, I don't trust any human being to make these kinds of decisions for a large group of people. That was the nice thing about reddit-- As a user, I could self-censor my own experience by joining or avoiding whichever communities suited me best. Now, someone else is essentially doing that for me.

You're a liar. And a hypocrite. Reddit's community was attracted to and built upon certain ideals. I'm all for an "open and honest discussion", but let's start with you being open and honest and acknowledge that the ideals which Reddit stood for have changed and that the site is currently being twisted to suit some other means. Advertisers not happy? Free speech not really that great for the corproate image? Lawyers getting their panties in a knot? I don't really care what the reason is, just own up to it so that the community can make informed decisions about what we want to do with our time.

Reddit, Inc. may own the servers and code, but we the community still have an (unspoken) stake in the site just the same. As the content creators: Stop treating us like a product and treat us like fellow shareholders. Stop trying to feed us corporate bullshit and deceive us.

TL;DR: The only people not being "open and honest" are the Reddit admins.

[–]RamonaLittle 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

(1 of 6. I have multiple questions, which I'm posting individually so people can upvote/downvote individually.)

Publication of someone’s private and confidential information

The User Agreement currently says "You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity."

Will the new policy clarify this, including what counts as "dox," and (if there's a "public figure exception"), who counts as a "public figure"?

A few examples of why this is an issue:

There was a redditor who used her IRL first name as her reddit name. She was associated with a high-profile criminal group and this was covered in many mainstream media reports. She moderated a large number of subreddits. In subreddits she didn't moderate, links to these articles were allowed because of course they were, they're mainstream news articles. But in subs she moderated, she called all these links "dox" and removed them, and banned anyone posting them. Permitted under new content policy?

How about a situation where there's a mainstream news article, something like "UnusualFirstName UnusualLastName arrested for kicking puppies." In the comment thread, someone says, "Hey, I wonder if this is u/UnusualFirstNameUnusualLastName, who posts a lot in r/KickingPuppiesIsFun?" Can u/UnusualFirstNameUnusualLastName get this comment removed as "dox"?

Basically I'm asking, can the "no dox" rule be used to shield someone from criticism and press coverage, especially if they're the one who made the connection between their IRL name and their reddit account? As it's been applied in the past, if there's a negative article about Joe Shmoe, all Joe Shmoe has to do to get it removed is to say "hey, that's me! Now remove this article which is doxing me!" I don't think that's a good use of the "no dox" rule.

[–]jstrydor 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Hey Spez, Obviously there's a lot of questions to be answered, so let's get right to the point...

  1. 3 years ago you made a comment about being extremely vigilant in having a clean desktop. Do you still hold that same stance today? If so, are you willing to provide proof?

  2. It's clear that you have some type of direct connection with the catholic church. Do you think this will hinder your ability to be a fair CEO for Reddit?

  3. You've admitted to founding Hipmunk.com What would you say to the tens of conspiracy theorists that believe your main goal is to dissolve Reddit in the hopes of driving traffic to your other site?

  4. Based on this comment It sounds like you had a "confusing childhood". Can you talk a little bit about how that's affected you today?

  5. Considering that you said this not too long ago, is it safe to assume that you still feel that way? That you're "Happy" to have moved on from Reddit!?!?

Thanks for taking the time to answer these, I know they're tough but I think it's important to be transparent on these issues.

[–]isolatedextremophile 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why do you suddenly feel the need to babysit us? You say that reddit was meant to be a place where open and honest discussions can take place. How does that happen without free speech? Could you please explain that to me?

[–]CodyJamison 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

There has been a lot of talk recently regarding getting rid of toxic subreddits (e.g. /r/coontown, /r/fatpeoplehate, etc.) in order to help monetize this site and make it appear more favorable to Advertisers.

I don't have an issue with that.

What I do have an issue with is..... what if this move allows Advertisers to dictate content being displayed on Reddit?

We 'all' upvoted the hell out of this when it was first posted, and the OP eventually had to delete his account. If Coke was an advertiser here at the time, I'm sure they would pressure the Admins to remove the post and/or user.

Or, lets say it's 2009 and General Motors is an advertiser and people started posting how they were experiencing issues with their ignition switches and GM pressured the Admins to remove those posts as they were unfounded claims and it was damaging to their "Brand". I'm sure they would go to the Admins and say comply and remove the posts or they would pull their advertisement money if they did not. Even though the ignition switches would be later linked to at least 87 deaths.

I know this is all a big "What IF', but when money gets involved and you change your site to ATTRACT Advertisers, I'm pretty sure you will remove content in order to KEEP Advertisers, especially if the Advertisers believe the posts are damaging to their "brand".

Will there be any safeguards put in place to not allow the removal of posts that may be damaging to an Advertiser's Brand?

[–]AlphaWolf101 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Steve, how do you plan on improving communication between mods and admins? Will you value their input on actions, such as firing Victoria?

Also, will previous shadowbans be possibly reversed after the shadowban policy change?

[–]bilde2910 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi, /u/spez, and thank you for doing this AMA regarding the upcoming content policy update. I've got a few questions that I would appreciate being answered.

Content policies are a highly controversial topic among redditors, and no matter which position you choose to take, there is bound to be a lot of drama and hate over the decision. First question, how do you intend to deal with the reaction of such a policy change? The last time this happened (banning of FPH), harassment and threats to Ellen Pao were floating around on the front page for days. Are you afraid that too many people will leave reddit to join alternative sites in order to voice their opinions without being censored?

Several subreddits are worried about whether or not their subreddit is going to be banned following the content policy update. So the next question is, where are you going to draw the line as to what content is considered acceptable, and what is considered reprehensible? How serious does the harassment have to be to call for a sub deletion? What if it is confined to a single or a few subreddits, and does not spread into other parts of the community? What if it does spread, but still remains within the boundaries of reddit? Will brigading subreddits be banned?

Next, I'm wondering about the reasoning and purpose behind the policy change. So, why do you change the policy that has been in place for over a decade? Is it for financial reasons? Is it to protect the individuals being harassed? Is it to protect reddit's reputation in the media? All of them?

Harassment subreddits have been around for a while, and some even for several years. Why have you waited until now to implement the policy changes? This surely has been a problem for you for a while, so is there any specific reason as to why this happens now, as opposed to maybe a year or two ago?

And finally: The [/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/](announcement post) has sparked a lot of controversy regarding reddit's goals as a free speech platform. You said in your announcement that:

Neither Alexis nor I created reddit to be a bastion of free speech

Yet, initially, free speech was exactly what your goal was for reddit. Why do you now say that free speech never was the intention?

Thank you in advance for answering my questions. I hope the changes turn out to be good for reddit.

[–]figureinplastic 19ポイント20ポイント  (7子コメント)

I'm just here for the popcorn.

[–]dangerdark 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why was /u/justcool393's post hidden?

https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3djjxw/lets_talk_content_ama/ct5qs8b

It still shows up under his posts, but if you go directly to the link it has disappeared.

[–]redpillschool 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In the past I have contacted the admin for guidelines to keep our mildly unpopular subreddit above board. The rude and short response I got was "just follow the rules" which seems to be as ambiguous as it gets, given that I was just asking what the damn rules were.. The site rules are open ended and unenforceable by mods- Mods don't have the ability to track brigading, how could we ever be responsible for stopping it?

Let's skip the excuses and call it what it is: Are the rules a red herring? Will you be removing subs you don't like, regardless of rulebreaking?

Here are some scenarios that scare me as a moderator:

  • Users can go literally anywhere on the site and troll. It's one big forum, there are no rules against participation anywhere.
  • If those users vote or comment their opinion and also subscribe to my subreddit, it can be seen as brigading.
  • Anybody can do this, especially if they want to frame the subreddit for misconduct.
  • There is no physical way for mods to prevent users from voting- there doesn't seem to be a reason to prevent users from voting (since that is the entire purpose of reddit).
  • Despite the popular rhetoric that users "belong" to certain subreddits, most users subscribe to multiple subreddits, so telling them not to participate site-wide when you're involved in discussion from certain subreddits seems antithetical to the purpose of the site, and again, totally unenforcable.

Why would any of these actions cause an entire subreddit to be banned?

[–]madd74 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hello and thank you for taking time out in your busy schedule to do this! I had a few questions, I will do my best to not TLDR you to death. :)

In a thread from a few ago you say:

Where FPH crossed the line, which I admit we're still defining, is that they actively were attacking other redditors. If they stayed within their community, I don't think we'd be having this conversation.

To me this would mean if mods truly have the users contained, which FPH and some others have not, that the sub in question is in no danger of being shut down. Specially, /r/imgoingtohellforthis where we do our best to explore the ever taboo world of "dark humor." The very, very few times we have had any admin stop by modmail, we have complied with the request and addressed it in a quick fashion. So does the sub have anything to be concerned about? I guess the concern comes from thing I've read on the Internet... because... it's on the Internet, so it's true, right? :)

The other question I have is in regards to your thoughts on banning, which you absolutely seem to be against. One thing we do in our sub, to protect it, and reddit, is ban users who are violating one of our core rules (reposts, doxxing, usernames). When we do so, it's a temp ban. We normally put in a message that is "in the nature of the sub and user in question." If the user goes ballistic we will sometimes increase the ban, but in many cases, we might even lift it if the user is cool. Would you say this is an acceptable practice or does it go against what appear to be your core principles on the use of SB and banning?

Can you give an example of mod harassment? I want to make sure I'm doing it right not doing it.

Finally, what kind of pickle do you prefer with your human? I am a dill fan myself.

Again, very much appreciate your time!

As always, thank you for not banning me...

[–]PhantomandaRose 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi u/spez. Thank you for taking the time to answer questions. As a user who was drawn to reddit by AMAs, this feature of the site is one of my biggest concerns. u/kn0thing went on record before you were appointed CEO that admins have no intention of monetizing r/iama. Now that you're CEO, I would appreciate if that pledge were renewed by you.

Can you please clearly answer the follow questions regarding r/iama policies/content with direct answers? I anticipate a response like "we're not monetizing, but I can't give details about board discussion" or something to that effect. I understand that is normally how things are done, but reddit leadership right now is at odds with a large chunk of its userbase, and I think more transparency is warranted here.

  1. Is reddit, inc. currently under pressure from the board of directors to monetize on r/iama? If so, how demanding is the board regarding this?

  2. Has the reddit admin team ever considered capitalizing financially on r/iama? I'm talking official plans that were scrapped all the way down to batting around informal ideas that never came to fruition. If so, how recent have discussions regarding this been? If you can't answer this because of your departure from reddit, please encourage u/kn0thing or other people who would have information to weigh in.

  3. Can you, as newly appointed CEO, pledge that reddit, inc. will not implement a monetization scheme with r/iama? I asked here and here, but got no response.

  4. In a semi-related question, u/kn0thing has explained his goal of getting celebrities to participate regularly in reddit rather than just isolated AMAs. Is the push to ban offensive content part of reddit's plan to lure celebrities to reddit? I.e., make reddit noncontroversial so celebrities can avoid potential scandal? 4a. Why don't you think it would be better to poll the userbase to see if they want to make this sacrifice for a celebrity presence? 4b. Wouldn't this give celebrities a power of ultimatum over reddit, inc. E.g., Tom Cruise wants all jokes about his sexuality deleted or else he leaves forever.

Thank you for your time.

[–]mcctaggart -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Spez, there has been accusations for years that a cabal of mods have sought to control a number of subreddits to suit their own political agenda. They censor posts and comments. This censorship has been documented on subreddits like r/politicalmoderation, r/subredditcancer r/moderationlog and r/undelete. You can search these subs for individual subreddit names to see the content they have removed.

r/worldnews, r/politics, r/europe, r/unitedkingdom, r/ukpolitics have all been guilty.

To give a couple of examples, r/europe bans people just for saying ISIS are inspired by the Qu'ran.

When the Tunisian terror attacks happened, the removed the thread about it saying it wasn't relevant as it happened in Africa despite the shooter targetting Europeans on holiday. This was one of those rare ocasions when it was such a big story, there was uproar on the sub so they had to relent. Many deleted stories go un-noticed by the community though.

Another exuse they will use to remove content they don't want people to see is to claim something is "low quality". Recently for example When someone posted amateur footage of African immigrants shouting that they had a right to live in Germany, they removed it and said the footage wasn't professional. The removed a thread about African migrants attacking tourist in Mallorca for the same reason. Here is a thread about the time they removed all threads about Muslim migrants throwing Christians out a boat in the med because "racists are using the story to post racism". This was another time they had to relent after so much uproar.

This exuse has been used on r/unitedkingdom too. One time a user posted a picture he took of a poster in a public school. It read that music was haram and the work of the devil and warned students not to dance. It was a top post and then the mods removed it. They eventualy had to come up with this reason that the picture was not taken by a professional. They then added this rule to the sidebar. r/unitedkingdom has become famous for purging UKIP supporters (a political party which wants to leave the EU). This is often talked about on r/ukipparty. People are banned for no reason other than this. One guy was recently told in a modmail that "he sounded a bit ukipppy".

This happend during the last election for Ron Paul supporters on r/politics. They would use tactics like remove posts and then an hour later re-approve them when they were much further down the queue, once someone protests or make up some excuse why it was deleted.

There was a lot of uproar when r/worldnews kept delting any Snowden stories and would not consider Glen Greenwald's The Intercept a news source. Pretty sure they did this for RT News too IIRC.

That's why there has been so much anger from some of us here and support for transparent moderation. People like u/go1dfish have been banned for trying to bring transparency to reddit. He created a bot to post deleted posts his subs which some mods hated and even banned people for posting on his subs.

Reddit used to be a great forum over five years ago when conent was not curated and censored by a band of particular mods who have dug their claws into this site. Are you planning anything to make it great again and bring transparency to the moderation? As you know many of the subs who are censored now grew large when there were free-er. Some became default subs and it is extremely difficult to get uncensored alternatives off the ground and make people aware of them. Maybe alternative subs could be advertised on large or default subs so people know they have options?

[–]AmesCG 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

From your initial post, it seems like you were prepared to draw a bright-line between (1) content that is objectionable, and (2) content that is both objectionable and inconsistent with your vision for the site, with only the latter being banned. Additionally, users and communities that harass others would continue to be banned.

Crafting such a policy is your right and indeed your responsibility, and if it would make Reddit a place that one can talk about in public without meeting raised eyebrows, then I'm all for it.

Your new post sounds like you might be rethinking that direction. My question, then, is can you give examples of where you will draw the line for what constitutes harassment/bullying/abuse of individuals or groups? For example, I think racist subreddits which have made themselves into little more than electronic Klan meetups -- you know the ones -- should be banned as inconsistent with Reddit's mission, as should communities like RedPill that glorify the emotional (and sometimes physical) manipulation of women. Arguably those communities also harass groups, and incite violence against or hatred of them.

Is that about what you are thinking, too? If not, can you give counterexamples? Thank you!

[–]Gandesa 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

GET THE FUCK IN

[–]Zentaren 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Who will be deciding what is considered offensive? Will communities of "offensive" subreddits have any warning if their sub is going to be banned?

[–]The_Year_of_Glad 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anything illegal (i.e. things that are actually illegal, such as copyrighted material.

Illegal in which jurisdiction, specifically?

[–]JP_Rushton 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

What is wrong with race realism? Why can't we talk about interracial crime, crime statistics, IQ statistics, biological differences, etc? What's wrong about that? We are a "hate group" because we talk about what the mainstream media won't talk about and covers up? Biological differences between the races that are the reasons for the crime disparity as well as IQ differences that are the reason for low scholastic achievement between the blacks and whites?

Why is that "hateful" to talk about those differences when no one else will? A few places talk about it, but a place for like minded people to get together and talk about these shared interests at what doesn't get talked about in the mainstream media is bad? Why is that?

Why do you want to cull discussion on reality and attempt to make us out to be a bad place? Seems like people are scared of the actualities of the world around them and the actualities of racial differences in looks, cognitive ability, behavioral and genetic differences between races so you have to attempt to use these buzzwords to make us look like bad people. We aren't. We work, have families and are just regular people who want to live in a safe area, and according to statistics, African-Americans are the most dangerous people in America. These come directly from the FBI stats.

We also have many differing opinions and have rules against calls to violence,

Explain how it's hateful to talk about the truth?

[–]kace91 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

two questions:

  • 1: From now on, what will happen to this idea?

We uphold the ideal of free speech on reddit as much as possible not because we are legally bound to, but because we believe that you - the user - has the right to choose between right and wrong, good and evil, and that it is your responsibility to do so.

(From the "every man is responsible for his own soul " post. ) Will reddit keep holding that belief?will choice still be the users' right in the future, or will there be a shift so that admins are the ones to decide now?

  • 2: I have a lot of issues with the slight references to banning "offensive content" that have been previously made. Some people are offended by crimes, some others by sexual kinks, some by a representation of their god. So, how will an hypothetical ban of offensive content work, if it's even being considered? Where are the limits?

[–]Vladimir_Is_Pootin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Alright, /u/spez, in that announcement post a few days ago, you claimed that you never referred to Reddit as a “free speech platform.” I have a few pieces of evidence that point to the contrary.

Interview where /u/spez calls Reddit a free speech platform, original video went conveniently private.

Reddit rules page Archive in case of sneaky revision

Reddit FAQ page Archive

/r/blog post Archive

“A bastion for free speech on the web…?”

How would you like to respond to the people calling you out for your blatant attempt to rewrite history?

[–]andkylrob 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Are you going to be censoring reddit even more so in the future?

You stated reddit was not a bastion of free speech, which contradicts what Alexis said previously, why is this?

[–]coon_shitlord 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

If Coontown is banned, will subreddits like /r/watchpeopledie, /r/sexyabortions, and other horrendous subreddits be?

[–]seamslegit -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Like many in recent months, I have explored voat.co . Despite what I had heard about the supposed most obnoxious and worst offenders of reddit moving there, I found threads to be pleasant, polite and users to be friendly with ironically less hate that I see on Reddit. People act more like they're talking to other people in real life. I find myself each day spending more time there than here. My only conclusion is that the unique features such as that users’ voting powers are limited until they’ve accrued a certain amount of positive feedback; No vote fuzzing; Moderators can only run a limited number of subs; User statistics that show voting behavior and disallows blatant advertising are conducive to a more positive environment. Is Reddit looking at implementing any of these features?

[–]Mister_DK 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

What exactly will you be cutting, and how much of it, and can I watch you do it while eating pork cracklings?

[–]fight_for_anything 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

  • Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)

you will need a much clearer and specific definition of these things. there are groups on both sides of every issue that are basically guilty of this. while subs like FPH were clearly guilty, all of the SRS subs do basically the same thing. attempting to silence people, and lets not kid ourselves, they brigade like its their full time job, despite what their sidebar says. its important to be fair and unbiased, in this kind of thing.

honestly, i think its better if you just tell eveyone to grow a pair, before this place turns into an idiocracy of people saying they are being harrassed just because someone else expressed a different opinion.

[–]ImNotJesus 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Spez, the current policy in place places the same importance on users who spend their time harassing other users as it does on users who just want to come here and have a good time.

1) Why do you refuse to protect users who don't want to have to deal with racism/sexism/etc. in their recreation time? How is "open discussion" more important than that?

2) Even if you don't profit from some of the hate groups on reddit, don't you feel complicit in them growing given that you give them a platform to gather and share their hate speech?

3) Do you understand that culture is a thing? If you allow groups devoted to fat people hate, rascism, sexism etc., you draw other people like that while alienating good every day users. How do you intent to make reddit less toxic?

[–]charonboat -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This...this is unspeakable. I am literally lost for words. They've done it. They've fucking finally done it. The SJWs have penetrated Reddit completely and utterly. We tried to warn everyone. We tried to say what was happening. But we were mocked, we were laughed at, we were told to "get over it." Well, here it is. The zero sum. Pure, unadulterated CENSORSHIP. "Never intended to be a bastion of free speech?" Revisionist history. They are LYING in order to preserve The Narrative. DOCUMENT EVERYTHING. ARCHIVE EVERYTHING. I in no way support the disgusting content on some of these Subreddits, but goddamn I will fucking die for their right to exist. And where does the line end? What do they count as 'offensive'? This is the last days of Rome. They say all roads lead to Rome, but I say all roads lead away from Rome. Pack up our shit and let's get out of here. There is nothing for us here, only death. And look at how the plebs are cheering the admins on. "So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause" - C. Hitchens

[–]BigDickRichie 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I hope Reddit has the common sense and the courage to finally get rid of places like coontown.

They claim they only spew hate in their corner of reddit but it's clear that they spread into every other major subreddit, especially every news subreddit.

They then threaten the admins to allow them to have their "safe space"

I've said it before.

Reddit needs to stop coddling assholes and impetuous children.

I wouldn't let anyone threaten me in my own home.

"You better let me act like an asshole in your basement or else I'll act like a giant asshole in every room of the house!"

Nope. I throw you completely out of my house.

You want to yell and scream and throw feces while I'm throwing you out? So be it, but you're still getting kicked out.

[–]Bwob 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Similar to NSFW, another type of content that is difficult to define, but you know it when you see it, is the content that violates a common sense of decency. This classification will require a login, must be opted into, will not appear in search results or public listings, and will generate no revenue for Reddit.

This is INCREDIBLY problematic - "I know it when I see it" has already been demonstrated to be a terrible thing to try to use as a basis for rules or laws.

I know this is a hard problem, but can you PLEASE figure out a consistent policy here, that doesn't ultimately boil down to "does the admin arbitrating on it happen to like it or not"?

[–]lodro 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

  • Anything that incites harm or violence against an individual or group of people

  • Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)

These two seem potentially quite problematic.

How are each of these terms defined? Who decides what is in or out, and by what process? Is that process transparent, and is there room for community input?

For example, some people see vehement disagreement in debate on a controversial subject as harassment, as in a Canadian legal case of harassment of Twitter that was in the news earlier this week. That sort of definition would capture a great deal of content that I believe a majority of Redditors do not want censored.

[–]smarvin6689 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I need you to answer this question with 100% absolute truth:

What is your honest opinion of popcorn?

[–]SF218 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)

Obviously, this is what is pretty much on everyone's mind. What, exactly, constitutes "harassment" according to the Reddit administration as a whole. You cannot simply institute such a vague policy. You have to draw the line and it has to be black and white.

Similar to NSFW, another type of content that is difficult to define, but you know it when you see it, is the content that violates a common sense of decency. This classification will require a login, must be opted into, will not appear in search results or public listings, and will generate no revenue for Reddit.

This is fair.

[–]smeezekitty 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

his is basically what we have right now. I’d appreciate your thoughts. A very clear line is important and our language should be precise.

What you have right now is mostly reasonable. I applauded Reddit when it banned Child Porn. But it is important to keep in mind that people don't have the right not to be offended.

I have other questions that are important to pose:

Do you still plan to discontinue shadowbans for users other than spammers? If so, what kind of time frame would there be on that?

Will rules be applied consistantly? For example, will brigaders for a feminist cause be treated the same as a brigader for an other cause?

Why the strange mix of banning subs? Like why was neofag banned?

[–]luftwaffle0 -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

If what this all means is that certain subreddits will be banned, and in particular /r/coontown, then I have some statements/questions:

First of all, I think coontown is more interesting than some give it credit for. People frequently post their stories of how they finally became racist. By far the most common theme of these posts is that they were taught growing up that everyone was equal, but that this notion was shattered once they moved to a black area or got a job where they interacted with black people.

This stands in direct contradiction to the most common theory of how people become racist, which is that they are indoctrinated in racism from birth by their racist parents and never encountered black people.

Is that not an interesting observation in itself? I mean, even in academia there are theories about why people are racist. You can study that right here on the site like almost nowhere else.

Secondly, there are useful purposes for a place like coontown. For one, it is a "safe space" where people are allowed to anonymously post their thoughts and opinions about things which could get them fired, cause them to lose friends, get them beat up or even killed in real life. People have repeatedly testified to how cathartic it is to have a place to say these things safely.

The next issue is a question of why coontown would be banned in the first place. Is it because of the ideas, or because of the tone? I wonder, if coontown were instead a collection of dry political essays and scientific papers, would it still be up for being banned?

If so, then that's quite clearly banning certain ideas, and all of this fluff about openness and honesty is just a cover.

But if not, then there is yet another problem. Are you saying that it's not the content but the tone of coontown? Is that not what certain groups call "tone policing"?

I have no problem with tone policing when it comes to talking to another person directly because it makes communication more amenable. However, to go after a subreddit which is almost specifically for venting and humor, on the grounds that their tone is out of line, is simply absurd. Furthermore, if it's really just the tone which is the problem and not the ideas, then there are a wide range of subreddits that would need to be banned as well.

There is yet more utility to a place like coontown. Frequently (as in, every single day) there will be news articles posted about victims of black crime. While the mainstream news media blots out the sun with encomiums about an armed robber who got killed while assaulting a cop (he was turning his life around, don't you know) and other such nonsense, stories like that of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom are completely unknown and ignored. An innocent couple was tortured for days including being repeatedly raped/sodomized to the point of injury. Newsom was shot to death and set on fire. Christian had bleach poured down her throat while she was alive, then had a plastic bag put on her head and was thrown into a garbage bin where she suffocated to death.

And these aren't the only stories. The stories of innocent people being raped, robbed and murdered happen every day and nobody seems to know about it or care.

This kind of backwards presentation of reality is exactly why increasingly so many people are getting pissed off, and why coontown not only exists but thrives. People feel that they are being lied to, that ordinary people are being made out to be evil using abstract, philosophical and vague notions of culpability while truly evil acts that actually happen in the world are being ignored. The rage comes from the powerlessness. The rage comes from compassion and love. "If you love something, you have to be willing to hate that which threatens it."

Having established that there are good and interesting reasons for coontown to exist, let us now address this idea of "openness and honesty" as opposed to "freedom of speech".

What does "openness" mean? To me, this means everyone being allowed to have their voice be heard. This seems to be precisely correlated with freedom of speech. I don't see how you can want openness while banning ideas.

What does "honesty" mean? Because it seems to me, that an anonymous place where people can openly state beliefs and opinions that would have harsh consequences in the real world is the definition of honesty. What honesty could you hope to have if people are afraid to make subreddits or post comments for fear of being banned? That is either not honesty at all and what you have achieved is instead a chilling effect, or it's "honesty" which is reserved only for people of certain ideological stripes which the admins happen to agree with, which is just about the most milquetoast version of "honesty" imaginable. What kind of virtue is honesty among people who agree with each other?

But maybe you mean intellectual honesty? To me that means making a good faith effort to understand what someone is saying, to be charitable in your interpretation of what they're saying, and to seek clarification if something is misunderstood as opposed to pouncing on it aggressively.

Well to that I would say that when it comes to intellectual honesty, I have not seen any worse offender than proponents of extreme feminism and anti-racism. The very idea of calling something "hate speech" is poisoning the well and intellectually dishonest. Countless times - really nearly every time - I have seen these people either purposefully mischaracterize or ignore arguments and counterarguments. I have seen schoolyard-style tactics such as "I could show you proof but you wouldn't listen" or "I'm not debating an angry inbred bigot" or a thousand other insults and deflections. The idea that everyone is equal is an article of faith which is held and defended so strongly that facts, reason, and even basic human standards for conduct are thrown out the window.

Why? Because racists and by extension coontown, are the boogeyman. It doesn't matter what the boogeyman says, because he's the boogeyman. A normal person, completely ignorant about 90% of the things relevant to a discussion about race including basic knowledge of statistics, history, facts about crime, neurology, psychology and genetics, just sees some kind of a devil who they have been indoctrinated to hate since birth.

But how applicable are ideas of "openness and honesty" to reddit anyway? That sounds like a policy aimed at promoting productive debate, but most of reddit is not a debate at all. It's people posting cat pictures or people talking about model trains or a thousand other things for which openness and honesty are virtues which are practically meaningless in how automatic they are.

And not only that, but considering the fact that the real end-user experience of reddit is the subreddits themselves, and the experience of the user is tightly controlled by the moderators thereof, "openness and honesty" is an idea almost completely out of the hands of the admins in actual fact.

Banning coontown doesn't improve openness and honesty one iota. Not only have you actually reduced openness directly, but people will still be banned from countless subreddits for posting the wrong idea, whatever it may be. I have over 1,000 comment karma in /r/news and have been gilded there 4 times, and I was banned while having a debate with someone in the comments which was going on 2 or 3 days after the news was originally posted. I was not trolling or insulting, I was explaining an idea in as plain of language as I am here. They never gave a reason for my ban despite my messages. I'm also banned from AskReddit, politics, science and probably a few other places. Although I am not perfect, I almost always conduct myself as politely as possible even if the other person is being rude, specifically because I want them (and readers of my comment) to see that I am not unreasonable or zealous, and to contrast my conduct against their own/my opponent's. I am honestly trying to change minds and I believe reason is the way to do that, not anger and venom.

My point is that "openness and honesty" is already dead on this site. With ideologue moderators running the defaults and no recourse from being banned from them, people are already shoved off from meaningful participation if they think or say the wrong thing. Of course I understand banning someone for straight-up trolling, but people have their access to the site restricted for much less than that.

Also, about brigading: certain subreddits blame coontown for brigading, but everyone and especially the moderators there are acutely aware of the trouble that brigading could bring. But any time some kind of anti-racist viewpoint is downvoted, this is chalked up to a coontown brigade. I do not believe there is any truth to this idea. I think that there are lots of people in the general population of reddit who are "racist" or at the very least can recognize a bad argument and thus downvote it. I've hardly ever seen an anti-racist comment that was truly buried, maybe -4 or -10 but that should be considered within the realm of normal voting patterns.

Meanwhile, I have lost hundreds of karma just recently because of a brigade from /r/shitamericanssay (they linked one of my comments), and while I did receive an admin response that they would "look into it", nothing seemed to have come from it. The mods did not post a notice and nobody in their sub posting comments related to me were banned. Also, if you search the site there are lots of complaints about their brigading. I do not understand how obvious brigading by subs like this and SRS can be ignored while coontown can be blamed for anything.

I have no "ultimate question" for you. It sounds to me like the decision has already been made. This post is my statement.

[–]bluebehemoth 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

what about SRS??? will they be banned too? they don't even use NP and they brigade all the time!

[–]NUMBERS2357 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have a question about "group harassment.". Reedit defines harassment as something that would make a reasonable person think reddit isn't a safe platform for their participation, or that makes them fear for their safety. Given this, it sounds like " safe" means more than just physical. Is this the case?

If so, what else counts? Many people talk about "safe spaces," defined similarly to the definition of harassment you use, and such spaces usually ban certain ideas. If users (credibly so!) think certain ideas (even mainstream ones!) make reedit not a safe platform for them to participate, will you ban those ideas from being discussed?

[–]Amablue 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Similar to NSFW, another type of content that is difficult to define, but you know it when you see it, is the content that violates a common sense of decency. This classification will require a login, must be opted into, will not appear in search results or public listings, and will generate no revenue for Reddit.

Are you saying there will be another flag you can use separate from the NSFW flag to indicate that content might be 'indecent'? What kind of stuff is that supposed to get applied to? Would, for example, basically everything in /r/WTF require that flag (or maybe the subreddit itself just implicitly sets it on everything)?

[–]_RedPillFedora_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just a quick question about banning subs due to harassment, if we banned /r/fatpeoplehate because of harassment why are subs like /r/theredpill still in existence. There is a lot of anti feminist ideology in there that filters to the rest of Reddit but that is the hub where users can share in their hatred for women. If there is a similar sub of women hating men we should also ban that too. Us vs Them ideology has no place on Reddit, I think the polarization due to subs that perpetuate this kind of thinking is what is really ruining Reddit. TLDR: If /r/fatpeoplehate was banned why is /r/theredpill still allowed to exist?

[–]stevierar 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've been waiting all day for this.

[–]DuhTrutho 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

  • Anything that incites harm or violence against an individual or group of people
  • Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)

These two points need clarification. What subreddits do you have in mind, especially if those places are currently self-contained?

I mean, /r/ShitRedditSays for example will bully individuals and link directly to them. /r/coontown bullies people, but from the haven of their own subreddit.

Are you asking us what the line should be, or can I ask what the line you want to establish is?

[–]BaneWilliams 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi there. I'm a psychopath who has Erotophonophilia. A variety of sub reddits that exist today on Reddit definitely help someone with a Philia based condition like myself control the very urges that keep us from being a blight to society.

For years, Reddit has helped people in my boat to function extremely well, by providing outlets for our Philias. Are sub reddits with those kinds of content looking at getting shut down (such as /r/AbusePorn all the way to things like /r/CuteFemaleCorpses ) because we run afoul of people who have no idea WHY the sub exists in the first place?

[–]SirMeaky 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

/u/Spez - I've spent many hours on Reddit and participated in many events over my time here. I'm all for free speech, however I think everyone has the right to an opinion and the right to express it.

The views over the various subreddits can be insulting, nobody is argueing that, but it's easy for people to unsubscribe and/or block the subreddits they find offensive and continue as normal on the site insult free.

Why is Reddit choosing to get rid of these subreddits? Why is it that Reddit doesn't just leave its users to moderate the content they wish to view?

Thank you for your AMA today.

[–]-Massachoosite 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)

This needs to be removed.

There is no other way around it. It's too broad. Is /r/atheism bullying /r/christianity? Is /r/conservative bullying /r/politics?

We need opposing views. We need people whose stupidity clashes against our values. Most importantly, we need to learn how to deal with this people with our words. We need to foster an environment where those people are silenced not with rules, but with the logic and support of the community.

[–]Grandfather_Clock 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So the obvious question that comes to mind is this: why doesn't reddit try to get in contact with the userbase more often? Once a year or so we get these AMA's, but other than that the interaction is minimal. Why not have a subreddit dedicated to feedback, that the team can then comment on when they have the time? Or maybe just comment on posts on the front page that are criticizing your way of running the site?

I feel a bit of back and forth casual conversation would do good to regain the trust of the userbase, instead of the corporate talk we get a lot of in threads like these.

[–]sleeps_with_crazy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fifty years ago, the overwhelming majority of people would have been deeply offended if I suggested that two men should be allowed to get married. They would have gone apoplectic if I suggested they should be allowed to adopt children. If history tells us anything, it's that there are things we consider self-evidently morally true now that in fifty years, our grandkids will be laughing at us for and they will be right. So my question is: if reddit existed back then and I created a sub dedicated to why gay couples should be allowed to adopt, would you have banned it?

[–]SRS_IS_GOD 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

Which of the following are you going to ban (if any)?

  • Coontown

  • Mens' Rights

  • The Red Pill

  • Philosophy of Rape

  • PussyPass & PussyPassDenied

  • Tumblr In Action

  • Kotaku In Action

  • Sexy Abortions

  • Pics of Dead Kids

  • Cute Female Corpses

  • Beating Women

  • Raping Women

  • Watch People Die

  • Great Apes

  • Holocaust (overrun by deniers)

  • Conspiracy

  • 911truth

  • Or even Shit Reddit Says. A small price if all of the above are banned too.

[–]Its_Bigger_Than_Pao 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

While it's important to talk about what is NOT allowed, I also think we need to address what is expressly endorsed by reddit. Specifically, why is /r/twoxchromosomes a default sub? The mods there very clearly push a certain political agenda. In addition, much of the content there relates to individual personal issues. While this is good, it seems very sexist and backwards to tell women that they should feel comfortable sharing their feelings and talking about personal problems while effectively telling men that we should continue to stay silent about our own issues. Why are women's feelings more important than men's? Why is a woman's problems more important than a man's? I see no justification for that sort of sexism coming from reddit.

[–]-Massachoosite 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hey Steve, thanks for doing this AMA. I think you lay out some interesting and thoughtful ideas.

That being said, I'd like to get your response to the following comment made by u/kojak488:

Neither Alexis nor I created reddit to be a bastion of free speech

Aside from the Forbes quote Alexis' own Reddit account has some exerts that imply otherwise:

We're working to spread empathy + understanding to as many people as possible -- people aren't just coming here because it sets the media agenda for the rest of the internet, it's because of the connection that happen when diverse people from across the world can speak freely about things they care about.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/comments/2vfh78/im_planning_on_doing_a_project_on_steve_huffman/cp13bul

We designed reddit to allow users to create the experience they want -- subscribing to communities they're interested in and creating distinct spaces with their own cultures, languages, and values. Any decision we make is always tested by: "Is this moving the reddit platform toward a place where it can be the best way for as many people as possible to find great communities to share freely and openly discuss the things they care about."

https://www.reddit.com/r/DiscussingDTOL/comments/2urgiv/lets_write_our_own_letter/colokor

We made reddit so that as many people as possible could speak as freely as possible

https://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/35ym8t/promote_ideas_protect_people/cr91bpm

reddit should be a place where anyone can pull up their soapbox and speak their mind, or have a discussion and maybe learn something new and even challenging or uncomfortable

https://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/35ym8t/promote_ideas_protect_people/cr92h5j

And many more. I mean fuck, kn0thing says in plain English:

You know what inspired reddit? Speakers Corner's in London

It's okay if you've changed your mind, but I think many people would like an honest statement to that point if you have.

[–]MoobyTheGoldenCalf -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are lot of areas on Reddit that I don't want to visit and in my opinion are deplorable. However, I do believe in free speech and the right for these areas to exist, even if I don't agree with their content. Ever since I've been a Reddit user, my solution has been to either not visit these areas or simply unsubscribe from them. Why is that solution no longer good enough and why is Reddit moving towards a censorship policy? As a follow up, what would you say to users that are against this policy and may leave Reddit for alternative sites like Voat?

[–]AgrippaDaYounger -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

If a substantial portion of the user base has already made it clear that they don't think changes to reddits policy on subreddit content are necessary, what is the point of asking them again for input that summarily seems to be ignored?

Is there anything that can be said here that hasn't already been expressed clearly from user reactions to recent announcements? Are you looking for user input or arguing for changes you've already decided to make?

Is keeping things as they are a possibility and if not, why?

[–]konzine 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Let's talk about the recent unprofessionalism that you and other admins have been displaying lately.

You were caught red handed saying reddit was not a bastion of free speech, and you caught lying.

The sacking of Victoria seemed to be a complete ruse to somehow gain company control.

Ellen became a scapegoat Alexis has been failing at every corner, even other admins and co founders calling him out on it.

A single, professional response to your absolute lack of ethics and competence would be perfect.

[–]jhc1415 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just yesterday I cam across some comments that were removed from /r/gaming that were actively engaging in a discussion to implement a rule about adding the game featured in the title. There was no warning and no word from the mods about the removal of these comments.

Do you see an issue with this and plan to implement more transparancy in the way subreddits are run? I had an idea to require the mod's name and a reason for removal to show instead of just [deleted]. What do you think about this?

[–]DeathToAtron 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yikes. Who in their right minds announces considerations? And terrible considerations at that. I get the idea behind this, to keep the conversation open...but yikes.

Spam? What does that even mean nowadays? Who's going to decide that?

Aren't you already working with groups to help keep copyrighted content down? Are there going to be more filters?

And then we get into the extremely weird harassment policies. When did we all decide to make the internet happy bunnies and cupcakes and rainbows?

[–]Arathian 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anything that incites harm or violence against an individual or group of people

Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)

Thank you for this AMA.

As a clarification, does this mean that you are not allowed to express dislike for a group (eg "I hate redheads!"/"I don't like you because you are a redhead!") or it just means that calling for direct action is not allowed (eg "Shave all the filthy redheads!")?

[–]nixonrichard 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)

So what about what we did to Comcast?

What about what we did to George Bush?

Rick Santorum?

What is the point of banning intimidating others into silence when there are entire subreddits that explicitly ban people simply for disagreement? What value would that serve unless you're going to say you can't ban individuals from subreddits for ideological differences?

[–]Rytlockfox 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Remember, if you don't like what's said here don't buy reddit gold.

[–]OGwilly 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

are you going to ban vicious hate subs like /r/ledootgeneration?

[–]smokebreak 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Similar to NSFW, another type of content that is difficult to define, but you know it when you see it, is the content that violates a common sense of decency. This classification will require a login, must be opted into, will not appear in search results or public listings, and will generate no revenue for Reddit.

Is this basically announcing the creation of a NSFL tag to cover things like gore, people dying (think /r/roadcam, not a sub dedicated to death), etc?

[–]dt403 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks for doing this AMA- what do you think about beefing up tools for users to report harrassment?

Right now, the only option seems to be the "Report" function, which goes to... mods? And then they only have so much power, basically banning them from a subreddit is as far as it can go.

Twitter recently vamped up their reporting system in an effort to take harrassment more seriously, it would go a long way to have more tools to do so here on reddit.

[–]NotAStoic 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What is a rough timeline on when you think you'll put these policies into action?

Also, the wording "Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)" seems to imply that if a specific group or person were not targeted, then there would be no harassment. Is this intended?

Finally, do you see enforcement of these policies focused on subs that are violating policy or users more?

[–]simsalabimbam 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

My question is simple: does /u/kn0thing have popcorn right now?

[–]seamslegit 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

  • Anything illegal (i.e. things that are actually illegal, such as copyrighted material. Discussing illegal activities, such as drug use, is not illegal)

Under what jurisdiction? North Korea? Iran? China? A small town in Kansas that wants to ban pictures of kittens?

  • Anything that incites harm or violence against an individual or group of people

I would argue that r/republican and r/democrat promotes all kinds of economic violence and harm.

[–]DubTeeDub 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would suggest banning subreddits devoted to hating people on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. That would ban the chimpire, raping, and beating network, and leave subs up that people are more on the fence about such as meta subs, Srd, bestof, men's rights, SRS, anti-SRS, KiA, TiA, Circlebroke, etc.

There is no reason for reddit to be a platform for white supremacists, rape advocates, and simillar people to spread their ideals.

[–]fight_for_anything 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Its important that we distinguish between content that people dont like, and what is illegal.

reddit already has filters for 18+ content. its rediculous for people to complain about these subs, if they have checked the box that allows them to be seen. how about we just say that questionable subs must mark themselves as 18+?

if people still have a problem with that, its their own fault for allowing 18+ content to be visible on their feed.

[–]birdguy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

How can reddit hope to be "a place where open and honest discussion can happen" if it plans to censor (legal) offensive content?

I agree that subreddits engaging in illegal activity should be banned, along with subs that break reasonable site rules such as posting personal information in order to harass individuals. What about other subs like /r/CoonTown, /r/TheRedPill, or even /r/WTF? Where do we draw the line with "offensive" content?

[–]MeatyTux 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Let the users buy the site back from the horrible ownership that is trying to wring money out of people that now hate you.

Set up a fund with a target, let all purchases of gold buy a non-voting share, similar to the Green Bay Packers.

Then have every Advance Media, YCombinator and other accumulated dipshit director and admin fuck off forever.

You are no longer fit to steward this site. Only a not for profit entity is fit to run it.

[–]PROFESSIONAL_FART 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Copy/pasted because this question was not answered during your last AMA:

Do you have any plans to remove all the subreddit squatters?

I find it very unsettling that I've put 2 years of volunteer work into building my community and yet it can all be undone on a whim because there are squatters who outrank me in the mod list. These people are still active on reddit, just not in my specific community. The problem exists all across reddit.

At the very least, making it easier to get admins to remove these people would do a world of good.

[–]birdguy 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is reddit outright banning hate speech such as /r/CoonTown?

[–]welsh_dragon_roar 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's quite simple for me; I know what content I like and what content I don't like. I look at the stuff I like and don't look at the stuff which I dislike. It'd never cross my mind to ban other people from looking at the disliked stuff; if they are racist, sexist or whatever then that's their problem, but as long as it's contained somewhere that optional to visit, then there isn't a problem. Don't like it, don't look at it.

[–]303onrepeat 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You know you have to get rid of all the hate right? Places that let this stuff foster are not good in any regard. Reddit has turned into a place where Stormfront and other hate groups actively recruit.

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/18/reddits_ugly_racist_secret_how_it_became_the_most_hateful_space_on_the_internet/

This stuff needs to be cleaned up ASAP. No reason for us as a community to let it continue and move forward.

[–]QuinineGlow 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)

Why do you believe that people are unable to defend and speak-up for themselves without your protection, and can you provide a comprehensive list of groups you believe are particularly incapable of doing this, along with some reasons why you think they can't look out for themselves without some form of assistance?

[–]ItsMeCaptainMurphy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You really need to clarify

Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)

because that's rather vague and is very much open to interpretation (one person's definition of harassment is not necessarily another's - is it harassment just because one person says so?). To be honest, I see nothing here that's really new to the existing content policy outside of "the common decency opt in", which I'm probably ok with - that will depend on how it's implemented and what is classified as abhorrent.

[–]ponoka -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Howdy Steve,

Just popping in to ask if you have any comments on or clarification about /u/yishan’s comment here.

While I’m here, this is my two cents on the matter: I feel like a lot of folks are assuming (and reacting accordingly, misattributed Voltaire quotes and all) that by backing down on your free speech policy, you’ll only let certain voices with particular stances occupy discussions. I strongly doubt that this is true (feel free to confirm/deny!). After all, colliding opinions and the sweet, sweet internet points that accompany them are really what make reddit worth reading! The best thing about Reddit is that it has arguably the most diverse userbase of any discussion site on the whole World Wide Web.

I’m really hoping that you do go through with full-out kicking out all the exclusively racist, homophobic and misogynistic subreddits (instead of the policy idea provided), and it has little to do with my ideological beliefs and a lot to do with my desire to kill time reading interesting discussions. At the end of the day, folks only here to propagate hateful content make up a small percentage of users and do lots more harm than good to reddit’s community, cluttering up comment sections on defaults and smaller subs alike with vitriolic comments chock full of ignorance that add little to actual discussion (Putting a ton of stress on mods! Remember who we’re fighting for here!) and making other users feel reasonably unwelcome, and in some situations, unsafe. Saying that keeping the darker subs around contains prejudice to that corner of the site is kinda naïve; each time a hateful comment soars to the top in a larger subreddit (which happens a lot, especially when users use the upvote button as an “agree” button), those places gain a few more subscribers that wind up contributing less and less quality content. In my opinion, getting rid of communities bound by mutual hatred will hopefully encourage bigots and trolls to leave or at least think twice before spouting B.S., ultimately improving content site-wide.

[–]Insert_Whiskey 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

As of right now, this second:

-What subreddits are you planning on eliminating under the prospect of:

Anything that incites harm or violence against an individual or group of people Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)

-What subreddits are you planning on seperating via login/opt in requirements?

I personally do not have any suggestions or opinions on whats subs should be included in these categories. I am simply asking for the sake of transparency.

[–]SirT6 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think this is the one that most people will be concerned about:

Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)

Prohibiting harassment, bullying and abuse sounds great in principle. Can you offer a bit more about how you will define those terms, and how you will enforce such a prohibition of content? Some examples might go a long way toward clarifying your thoughts on this issue.

The Reddit staff is rather small compared to other social/community-based websites, I can't imagine it can effectively respond on a case-by-case reporting basis. Do you have a different vision for rapidly and efficiently enforcing a prohibition on this type of content.

[–]DIR3 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

In the previous announcement, you had clearly stated that neither Alexis or yourself created reddit to be a "bastion of free speech", yet Alexis said otherwise verbatim to Forbes

So my question is - What exactly changed the Founding Fathers minds?

[–]MrBaz 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anything that incites harm or violence against an individual or group of people

Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)

Can we get a clear definition of the term "harassment" from your end? Is it enough to claim one is being harassed? Is there any sort of examination of the exchange?

[–]durpabiscuit 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It seems that reddit is attempting to generate more revenue. Reddit gold was a great strategy that kept the site clean of bulky banner ads and added something I think is unique to reddit. I know companies are always trying to increase their revenue stream, but is this true of Reddit right now, and do ya'll have any sort of strategy or ideas that you want to implement?

[–]pinterestthrowaway2 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hey Steve!

Thanks for doing this AMA. Considering the media and basically everyone on Reddit is looking at this, I would like to ask you a tough question and I hope that you will answer it:

What piece of advice would you give to the operators of the Reddit alternative voat.co to avoid this type of drama and negative media attention in the future?

[–]AlphaWolf101 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

When will something be done about subreddit squatters? The existing system is not working. Qgyh2 is able to retain top mod of many defaults and large subreddits just because he posts a comment every two months. This is harming reddit as a community when lower mods are veto'd and removed by someone who is only a mod for the power trip. Will something be done about this?

[–]Dworkinator 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

If any place deserves to be banned, its r/SRS. They’ve been allowed to doxx and harass people for years. They even banned np links allowing their users to vote brigade every single thread they link to. Plus it’s filled with the worst sexists and racists I’ve ever seen.

[–]i_flip_sides 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So if I understand this correctly, /r/coontown would be banned, while /r/picsofdeadkids would be labeled NSFL or whatever, and you'd have to opt in to see it. Is that right, spez?

That's ore more even-handed than I was expecting. Hypothetically, where would something like KiA fall? Or srssucks? They both exist to mock (abuse?) a group of people. Honest question.

[–]Ethanol_Based_Life 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Assuming they are able to avoid doxxing, brigading, and direct harassment, if a person truly believes that fat people, the media, black people, white men, organized religions, or the gays are hurting the world or its people for reasons X, Y, and Z, will Reddit remain a platform where they can discuss their opinion, provide "evidence", and meet like minded people?

[–]bennjammin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Separation and opt-in techniques have worked well for keeping adult content out of the common Redditor’s listings, and we think it’ll work for this other type of content as well.

I think the way NSFW is handled on reddit is great, what other site with porn on it can you safely browse at work? Do you think something like this should apply to meta-discussion?

[–]freekill -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi /u/spez,

Concerning the free speech vs. "better overall community" argument, why are there no discussions from the admins regarding solutions that are democratic and involve the entire community? Instead, it seems the only option being proposed involves only bans handed down by admin decision making? In my opinion, admin bans based on monitoring of "appropriate" subreddit content seems so counter to the Reddit spirit that it has to be the absolute worst solution for the long term survival of the community.

For instance, instead of banning communities outright that post content the majority of Reddit might find reprehensible, why not force those subreddits simply to be private subreddits? You could setup a subreddit where such communities are submitted and the Reddit community decides if it should be private by default. No shadow banning, no admin policing of content (other than existing policies on illegal content) and you get the added advantage of keeping Reddit a bastion for free speech, even though you apparently no longer believe it should be such. You don't have to worry about people stumbling upon "reprehensible" content, since you explicitly have to opt in to see it. Even search engines can't parse it while closed, so your reputation remains intact. You could even potentially mark such subreddits differently denoting that they contain content that may be offensive and require people to explicitly consent to joining.

There are many subreddits I personally find reprehensible, but that's why I don't subscribe to those subreddits. I would never want Reddit to be a place where a community could not exist simply because I don't agree with the content. The beauty of Reddit, and I believe its core strength, is that my experience on the site is tailored to my own preference and the same goes for every other member. That benefit would rapidly decline if I was unable to find communities of interest due to censorship efforts attempting to whitewash content.

[–]Woahtheredudex -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why was /r/NeoFag banned when there has been no evidence that it or its users ever took part in harassment? Why was a mod of the sub then shawdowbanned for asking about it? Especially when you have recently said that shawdowbans are for spammers only?

[–]SharpKeyCard 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Who will be the judge in this? I know Wikipedia has a committee known as ArbCom, which is a user ran arbitration committee who handles disputes. Is there any room for a user ran committee who can help with judging what content stays vs what does not? I think a system like this might be good, it would make Reddit a community first and company second.

Thanks

[–]AlGamaty 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Similar to NSFW, another type of content that is difficult to define, but you know it when you see it, is the content that violates a common sense of decency. This classification will require a login, must be opted into, will not appear in search results or public listings, and will generate no revenue for Reddit.

Can you elaborate on this please? Thanks.

[–]tahlyn 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)

Can you clarify this?

If a prominent and/or public figure, such as a politician or an activist, makes public statements on public media... are we allowed to dissect and criticize those statements? Or is this considered bullying of an individual?

[–]naffrodisiac 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

My question is simple. Why abandon all the principles that made Reddit so successful? If you ban "distasteful" subreddits, you are ruining everything that made the site what it is - and thus less appealing to advertisers. If a company wants to advertise with Reddit, they should understand WHY it has the reach and impact that it does.

[–]MimesAreShite 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Adult content must be flagged as NSFW (Not Safe For Work). Users must opt into seeing NSFW communities. This includes pornography, which is difficult to define, but you know it when you see it.

Does this mean that you wouldn't be able to view porn on reddit without being logged in? That'd be kind of annoying, for... reasons....

[–]AliceBones 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

CRY 'POPCORN!', AND LET SLIP THE MODS OF WAR!

[–]Doulich 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I just wanted to say, buy FREE VIAGRA PILLS FROM CANADA PHARMACY ONLINE 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 OBAMA'S PERSONAL RESIDENCE IS 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE GO ASSASSINATE HIM NOW ALSO shut the fuck up spez get bullied and be silent forever also i fukt those chilean guys that were underground that one time

[–]100Envelopes -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi, thanks for doing this. R/4chan frequently reposts inflammatory racist content from /pol/, will r/4chan be affected? How about r/conspiracy, known for extreme antisemitism as well as organizing off-site harassment campaigns of bereaved families and (really) daycare centers?

Edit, changed "banned" to "affected"

[–]PM_ME_YOUR_DISEASE 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What do you think of "meta" subs, especially those that are centred around mocking other users, things like "bad(x)" or various "drama" groups? I tend to feel they have an overall negative effect on the wider community as they are basically places for people to congregate to point and laugh at other users.

[–]The_GanjaGremlin 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

FUCK THE MODS

[–]hansjens47 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

As more and more social platforms have started banning hate speech, how will reddit cope with and respond to gradually becoming the sanctuary for haters to hang out on?

What are the positive effects of catering to haters?

How many people choose not to become redditors because they are exposed to hate?

[–]anticapitalist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

All these rules will be enforced selectively.

eg:

"Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)

That's the whole goal of many anti-male hate subreddits like ShitRedditSays.

But they've never been targeted.

[–]grantishere 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do you have any comments about the following contradicting quotes of yours?

"Neither Alexis nor I created reddit to be a bastion of free speech”

on the most recent Reddit announcement and

“A bastion of free speech on the World Wide Web? I bet they would like it,”

several years ago.

[–]gorillagnomes 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

A few questions:

  • Glad to have an admin assigned to moderator issues and communication. Will /u/krispykrackers be given a team to direct so that she can effectively manage the work load?
  • What kind of tools are already in the pipeline? What mod tools are you already developing?

[–]Inglonias 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

How will things that break the rules be handled?

How broad will the strokes be with that brush? Is it individual posts or entire subreddits?

What sort of appeals process will there be, if any?

How will moderators be able to enforce these things? Will they be given new tools?

[–]MoobyTheGoldenCalf 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)

That seems to be open to a vast variety of interpretation. Who is going to arbiter when individuals disagree on what is "harassment" or "bullying"?

[–]gaardyn 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anything that incites harm or violence against an individual or group of people

How is harm defined? According to dictionary.com, the meaning is

  1. physical injury or mental damage; hurt:

Does that mean if a posts that cause someone to feel depressed are prohibited?

[–]avoidingtheshadow -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why was /u/Dancingqueen89 shadowbanned mere DAYS after your claim that shadowbans were only for spammers and not "real users"?

I'm going to presume that /r/neofag was banned for using publicly available pictures of NeoGAF users in its banner, since there was a complete lack of transparency regarding this ban. Why then, was /r/starcraftcirclejerk let off with a slap on the wrist for including the leaked nudes of a user, and subsequently spamming his inbox with username mentions in order to post said pictures? Is this not considered harassment? Why did one warrant a complete ban, and the other simply having the offending material removed?

Also, Why was /r/neogafinaction banned despite being created months before the banning of /r/neofag?

I'm hoping you'll live up to your promise of transparency /u/spez

(Disclaimer: I think Destiny is an asshole. I didn't browse NeoFAG. I care about fairness, equal application of the rules, and transparency).

[–]adagiosummoner 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Since you are in favor of free, open discussion, how do you feel about people who use boogeyman terms such as "sjw" and what subs people choose to mod or post as a way to stifle discussion?

What about brigades from communities a conversation isn't meant for?

[–]TossedRightOut 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Therefore, today we're announcing that we're considering a set of additional restrictions on what people can say on Reddit—or at least say on our public pages—in the spirit of our mission.

Considering adding these restrictions, or they've already been added?

[–]etgohomeok 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)

This is very open for interpretation and can be used by mods and admins as an excuse to ban people who's opinions they don't like.

[–]TransKike 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

So what's happening to r/coontown ?

[–]Tonbar 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

My feeling is straight up, reddit shouldn't be in the business of content limitation. Moderation is one thing but how do you define anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses. This is way too broad and in doing that it's clearly designed to limit speech.

[–]hiero_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Everything said here is totally sensible as far as I'm concerned and if you disagree then the bullshit you're defending with "free speech" probably falls into one of the categories listed and perhaps you do as well, and reddit will move on without you.

[–]hansjens47 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

www.Reddit.com/rules outlines the 5 rules of reddit. They're really vague, and the rest of the Reddit wiki has tonnes of extra details on what the rules actually imply.

What's the plan for centralizing the rules so they make up a "Content Policy" ?

[–]minimaxir 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

How does Reddit's old 9:1 rule (9 pieces of content for every 1 of original content) play into the banning of spam?

The 9:1 rule is terrible and should honestly be removed completely, with egregious offenders handled case-by-case by subreddit mods.

[–]asmartguylikeyou 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What kind of transparency are you all going to offer in terms of how content related decisions are made, and what kind of tools are you all going to utilize to ensure that these decisions are consistent and reflective of the new content criteria?

[–]man_and_machine -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think it’s clear to most everyone that reddit is interested in making money. It’s what companies do. Now, the obvious ways of monetizing something like reddit are placing advertising on the website and offering a premium membership. But there are a number of problems with those methods of gaining revenue, the worst being: they’re just so boring. I mean, that’s what everyone does. Why can’t we do something actually original here? So I’ve taken the liberty of making a list of a few far more interesting ways reddit could increase their revenue:

  • Add an autocorrect feature for commenting for users with Reddit Gold

  • Add an autocorrect feature for everyone, and the ability to disable autocorrect for users with Reddit Gold

  • Bring back Reddit Mold

  • Bring back The Button. Let users pay for extra clicks. Promise an actual award for when The Button reaches zero, that grows the longer it hasn’t gone clicked.

  • Add the ability to transfer karma between accounts (not points on individual posts or comments, just overall karma). Thus, karma becomes the next digital currency!

  • Allow users to pay a fee to change their username, while keeping their account

  • Reddit Trading Cards! Akin to Steam Trading Cards, allow subreddits to create a set of trading cards. When users reach a certain amount of activity in a particular subreddit (i.e. posting, commenting, or even just voting on posts), a random trading card will drop for that subreddit, until that user has reached the drop limit for that sub. After that, users will have to either buy or trade for the other trading cards to complete the set! And then I don’t know, give them a trophy or something. Or don’t – just let them have some trading cards.

  • Let users pay to make posts more visible. I don’t mean letting people buy extra upvotes – that would work against the ranking system that helps make reddit so good. Instead, I mean literally make posts more visible, with things like larger text, bolded font, bigger thumbnails, and so on.

  • Start selling Reddit SuperGold. I don’t know what you could do with it to make it better than Reddit Gold, but I’m sure someone could think of something.

So, uhh, I was hoping that this list of interesting ideas for monetization would inspire someone else to come up with some good interesting monetization methods for reddit. Because these are terrible.

[–]MaxwellConn 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)

So how does this relate to hateful subs (e.g. coontown) that claim to keep their hate contained within their sub?

[–]trollsalot1234 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

•Anything illegal ... such as copyrighted material

•Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)

so you will be banning virtually everything on reddit then?

[–]treesmon 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You claimed "Neither Alexis nor I created reddit to be a bastion of free speech, but rather as a place where open and honest discussion can happen." However, Alexis LITERALLY has called reddit a bastion of free speech. So why did you lie?

[–]excited_undertaker 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Mr. Huffman,

How do you think these decisions will realistically affect the reddit community? What are your thoughts on the possible reactions from banned subreddits? How can you or the mods prevent a similar storm that followed "the fattening"?

Thank you for your time.

[–]raxcitybitch 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You say you want freedom of speech again, why not offer a viable solution - a spoiler/tag/nsfw mark that may make people offended.

You shouldn't be coming into reddit and looking for subs that make you mad, are people retarded?

[–]johker216 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)

How is this going to be determined? Isn't this highly subjective and therefore impossible to normalize?

[–]bunglejerry 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Steve,

Please talk about your vision as regards the monetisation of AMAs. More generally, what is your vision regarding monetisation? If your job - as was Ellen's - is to turn a certain profit, how are you going to do it?

コメントをもっと表示する (255 返事)