5 ms·

They did not ban racist subreddits like /r/blackpeopletwitter and /r/fragilewhiteredditor. If you don't know, to post on /r/blackpeopletwitter you have to send

They did not ban racist subreddits like /r/blackpeopletwitter and /r/fragilewhiteredditor. If you don't know, to post on /r/blackpeopletwitter you have to send a photo of your skin color to the moderators. They are literally racially segregating users.

anticonformist 6y ago
Exactly. Just because someone claims something is anti-racist doesn't make it so. Almost all organized evil is done in the name of something good. Look at how laws like the The Patriot Act are named. The people behind these bans are leftist extremists going after their rightist extremist enemies. Their "good intentions" are paving our path towards hell.
dogma1138 6y ago
“While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/promoting-hate-based-identity-or https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/acc...
- vageli 6y ago
  > “While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” The majority where? I can't find any specifics on what the majority qualifier is applied to (ex: the community in which the speech occurs, the geographic community of the user, etc).
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    It's even worse than that. People can honestly disagree about whether the term "racism" accurately describes something or whatever, but that's a far cry from actively condoning ("..this rule does not protect...") the whipping up of hate towards a majority of the population. The internet is full of nihilists and misanthropes who genuinely hate everyone and everything - I'm sure they can't wait to abuse this weakness in every way they can possibly think of. All for teh lulz, of course.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    I’m guessing the whole thing is very USA centric, and they haven’t really thought through the implications of having users from across the world.
- champagneben 6y ago
  In the majority... in the United States?
- naasking 6y ago
  > “While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” So according to this rule, a racial minority can call members of a "majority race" sub-human, but not vice-versa. And yet, majority/minority are regional properties. How do you know a redditor's region in order to moderate their comment appropriately? Or are reddit employee regions the only ones that matter? It's clearly a farce. Majority/minority status is a red herring. It's used only to enable reddit and mods to selectively apply the rules for their own ends. The fact is, it's unethical to call any race sub-human, regardless of whether the majority shares your views.
  - nordsieck 6y ago
    > So according to this rule, a racial minority can call members of a "majority race" sub-human, but not vice-versa. According to academia, this is correct: racism only exists in the context of class based oppression. Of course, many people disagree with this definition.
    - naasking 6y ago
      > According to academia, this is correct: racism only exists in the context of class based oppression. Which is silly on its face. If two opposing races that hated each other held equal power, they might not be able to get the upper hand on the other, but they still hate each other solely on the basis of race. Is this the "non-racist" utopia they're after?
    - logarhythmic 6y ago
      I don't know how widespread this belief is but I personally know people who believe this and it seems to be only spreading in the current heavily polarized environment. It is truly astonishing to witness
    - rayiner 6y ago
      What does “academia” have to do with anything?
- ars 6y ago
  > For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority Are they serious? So basically racism is OK as long as it's toward people who are the majority?
  - syshum 6y ago
    Reddit adopts the "Prejudice + Power" definition of racism, not the actual definition of racism
    - jimclegg 6y ago
      Reddit's definition seems more contextual, it weighs the dynamics of current economic, cultural, institutional, etc... racism Here is the Oxford dictionary definition: "The inability or refusal to recognize the rights, needs, dignity, or value of people of particular races or geographical origins. More widely, the devaluation of various traits of character or intelligence as ‘typical’ of particular peoples. The category of race may itself be challenged, as implying an inference from trivial superficial differences of appearance to allegedly significant underlying differences of nature; increasingly evolutionary evidence suggests that the dispersal of one original people into different geographical locations is a relatively recent and genetically insignificant matter."
  - rjohnk 6y ago
    If you look at academic definitions, yes, often they will state racism is from the majority to the minority. It is rather odd.
    - TravHatesMe 6y ago
      I don't understand this. For all of my life I thought racism = discrimination against someone due to their race. In the same way that sexist = discrimination against someone due to their sex. Ageist = discrimination against someone due to their age. Is this not the clear cut definition anymore? At what point did it diverge?
      - 6y ago
- castlecrasher2 6y ago
  Got it, so racism against Asians is the go-to now /s
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Darmody 6y ago
  I've commented about this on HN earlier. Censorship will end up swallowing us all. Now I guess it's ok to hate me as I'm part of several majorities and people seems to like it. What am I supposed to do now? Hate myself? Allow others to discriminate me? Make a blind eye to those who think it's ok to hate me?
grenoire 6y ago
Damn, I never actually heard this being spoken about on reddit. It's interesting, I'm not from the US and I find it curious that these situations arise. I can understand and empathise with (as a 'person of colour' as it's called over there) the arguments of both sides, but deep down I find this kind of 'positive segregation' morally wrong.
- Tiltowait-- 6y ago
  >Damn, I never actually heard this being spoken about on reddit. That's pretty much the whole idea of censorship.
archagon 6y ago
> If you don't know, to post on /r/blackpeopletwitter you have to send a photo of your skin color to the moderators. I think there's a good reason for doing that, given that such a sub can almost trivially become a hate sub for mocking people on Twitter, much like fatpeoplehate. "We want our community to be largely black" seems like a reasonable founding principle.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  Let's do a CTRL-H test: "We want our community to be largely white" seems like a reasonable founding principle. How do you feel about the statement now?
  - archagon 6y ago
    "White" is a catch-all term for light-skinned ethnic groups with "defaultness" in American society. There is no such thing as "white history," "white heritage," or "white culture," except in opposition to "non-default" ethnic groups. If you change the founding principle to "we want our community to be largely Russian," that would be totally fine by me. Additionally, opposition to the "largely black" founding principle implies opposition to women-only spaces and other community groupings that are largely accepted in society.
    - Ghjklov 6y ago
      I think this is a copout answer. "White" usually refers to people of European heritage who have lighter skin in America.
      - archagon 6y ago
        What do generic "Europeans" have in common with each other? As a Russian, I feel like my culture overlaps relatively little with French, German, or English. Moreover, which parts of "Europe" are actually included in this taxonomy? Are Romani considered white? What about Southern Italians? Black people in France? It all boils down to "people of European heritage with white skin (whose ancestors wrote books and stuff that I like)," which is wishy-washy and tautological.
syntonym2 6y ago
According to this post [0] only allowing black people to post was a time limited action. As an Aprils fool joke only black people were allowed to post, which resulted in positive feedback from the community, according to the mods. Now everyone can post again, where as black people can get verified and a special flair (a small visual indication next to their username). Some threads [1] are reserved for verified people, but non-black person can also get verified (but might not get a flair). [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/b93w1j/rblackpeopletwitter_is_open_to_everyone_again/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/b93w1j/... [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/gumxuy/what_is_bpt_country_club_and_how_do_i_get/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=BlackPeopleTwitter&utm_content=t5_33x33 https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/gumxuy/...
- mcculley 6y ago
  That special flair thing is amazing. I had no idea. I wonder how long before we see forums using it for other skin colors and genetic types. It's exactly the opposite of the trend of text-oriented interfaces democratizing access.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  Your [1] has three standards for three groups of people. 1. black people who can verify and get a flair 2. non-white and non-black people who can verify but don't get a flair 3. white people can ask the moderators for entrance, but it only says they will will "receive further instructions." It's not clear what these further instructions are supposed to be. This is racist and if a right wing subreddit did it, they would have been banned years ago.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    I find it odd people aren't bringing up the obvious motivation for this. Simply calling it racism seems obtuse. Anywhere race is a topic and anyone can join, but there is no verification of identity, trolls can claim anything. How do you think it feels to be a Black member of a forum and see a White person who is taken in by a White troll pretending to be Black? Conversely, how do you think it feels to be Black and be arguing with someone White who is sure you are a White troll pretending to be Black? It's not a trivial problem, and it's inherent anywhere your online identity isn't linked to your real one.
Darmody 6y ago
If they do they will be called racists and white supremacists. And I'm the crazy one when I say social media is only banning right wingers.
lovegoblin 6y ago
> racist subreddits like /r/blackpeopletwitter and /r/fragilewhiteredditor. lmao give me a break
- TheGrim-888 6y ago
  For example, Reddit previously banned the "fat people hate" subreddit, where they sat around and made fun of fat people, while these subreddits, where all they do is sit around and make fun of people based on the color of their skin are allowed to prosper. If anything, a subreddit dedicated to making fun of people based on the color of their skin is a lot more bannable than making fun of people based on their weight ..
- Karunamon 6y ago
  The former literally segregates users by requiring them to send in a picture with their skin color visible. The latter expresses a racial prejudice in the name.
danudey 6y ago
Complaining about the /r/fragilewhiteredditor subreddit is kind of just proving their point though.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  Why should white people tolerate racism against themselves?
  - mrguyorama 6y ago
    /r/fragilewhiteredditor is not racism. Being a "White redditor" is not a race. The sub is not about hating redditors for being white, but for talking about and possibly getting angry at people who are very blind to their prejudice or priviledges

anticonformist 6y ago

Exactly. Just because someone claims something is anti-racist doesn't make it so. Almost all organized evil is done in the name of something good. Look at how laws like the The Patriot Act are named. The people behind these bans are leftist extremists going after their rightist extremist enemies. Their "good intentions" are paving our path towards hell.

dogma1138 6y ago

“While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/promoting-hate-based-identity-or https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/acc...

vageli 6y ago
> “While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” The majority where? I can't find any specifics on what the majority qualifier is applied to (ex: the community in which the speech occurs, the geographic community of the user, etc).
- zozbot234 6y ago
  It's even worse than that. People can honestly disagree about whether the term "racism" accurately describes something or whatever, but that's a far cry from actively condoning ("..this rule does not protect...") the whipping up of hate towards a majority of the population. The internet is full of nihilists and misanthropes who genuinely hate everyone and everything - I'm sure they can't wait to abuse this weakness in every way they can possibly think of. All for teh lulz, of course.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  I’m guessing the whole thing is very USA centric, and they haven’t really thought through the implications of having users from across the world.
champagneben 6y ago
In the majority... in the United States?
naasking 6y ago
> “While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” So according to this rule, a racial minority can call members of a "majority race" sub-human, but not vice-versa. And yet, majority/minority are regional properties. How do you know a redditor's region in order to moderate their comment appropriately? Or are reddit employee regions the only ones that matter? It's clearly a farce. Majority/minority status is a red herring. It's used only to enable reddit and mods to selectively apply the rules for their own ends. The fact is, it's unethical to call any race sub-human, regardless of whether the majority shares your views.
- nordsieck 6y ago
  > So according to this rule, a racial minority can call members of a "majority race" sub-human, but not vice-versa. According to academia, this is correct: racism only exists in the context of class based oppression. Of course, many people disagree with this definition.
  - naasking 6y ago
    > According to academia, this is correct: racism only exists in the context of class based oppression. Which is silly on its face. If two opposing races that hated each other held equal power, they might not be able to get the upper hand on the other, but they still hate each other solely on the basis of race. Is this the "non-racist" utopia they're after?
  - logarhythmic 6y ago
    I don't know how widespread this belief is but I personally know people who believe this and it seems to be only spreading in the current heavily polarized environment. It is truly astonishing to witness
  - rayiner 6y ago
    What does “academia” have to do with anything?
ars 6y ago
> For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority Are they serious? So basically racism is OK as long as it's toward people who are the majority?
- syshum 6y ago
  Reddit adopts the "Prejudice + Power" definition of racism, not the actual definition of racism
  - jimclegg 6y ago
    Reddit's definition seems more contextual, it weighs the dynamics of current economic, cultural, institutional, etc... racism Here is the Oxford dictionary definition: "The inability or refusal to recognize the rights, needs, dignity, or value of people of particular races or geographical origins. More widely, the devaluation of various traits of character or intelligence as ‘typical’ of particular peoples. The category of race may itself be challenged, as implying an inference from trivial superficial differences of appearance to allegedly significant underlying differences of nature; increasingly evolutionary evidence suggests that the dispersal of one original people into different geographical locations is a relatively recent and genetically insignificant matter."
- rjohnk 6y ago
  If you look at academic definitions, yes, often they will state racism is from the majority to the minority. It is rather odd.
  - TravHatesMe 6y ago
    I don't understand this. For all of my life I thought racism = discrimination against someone due to their race. In the same way that sexist = discrimination against someone due to their sex. Ageist = discrimination against someone due to their age. Is this not the clear cut definition anymore? At what point did it diverge?
    - 6y ago
castlecrasher2 6y ago
Got it, so racism against Asians is the go-to now /s
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Darmody 6y ago
I've commented about this on HN earlier. Censorship will end up swallowing us all. Now I guess it's ok to hate me as I'm part of several majorities and people seems to like it. What am I supposed to do now? Hate myself? Allow others to discriminate me? Make a blind eye to those who think it's ok to hate me?

grenoire 6y ago

Damn, I never actually heard this being spoken about on reddit. It's interesting, I'm not from the US and I find it curious that these situations arise. I can understand and empathise with (as a 'person of colour' as it's called over there) the arguments of both sides, but deep down I find this kind of 'positive segregation' morally wrong.

Tiltowait-- 6y ago
>Damn, I never actually heard this being spoken about on reddit. That's pretty much the whole idea of censorship.

archagon 6y ago

> If you don't know, to post on /r/blackpeopletwitter you have to send a photo of your skin color to the moderators. I think there's a good reason for doing that, given that such a sub can almost trivially become a hate sub for mocking people on Twitter, much like fatpeoplehate. "We want our community to be largely black" seems like a reasonable founding principle.

Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
Let's do a CTRL-H test: "We want our community to be largely white" seems like a reasonable founding principle. How do you feel about the statement now?
- archagon 6y ago
  "White" is a catch-all term for light-skinned ethnic groups with "defaultness" in American society. There is no such thing as "white history," "white heritage," or "white culture," except in opposition to "non-default" ethnic groups. If you change the founding principle to "we want our community to be largely Russian," that would be totally fine by me. Additionally, opposition to the "largely black" founding principle implies opposition to women-only spaces and other community groupings that are largely accepted in society.
  - Ghjklov 6y ago
    I think this is a copout answer. "White" usually refers to people of European heritage who have lighter skin in America.
    - archagon 6y ago
      What do generic "Europeans" have in common with each other? As a Russian, I feel like my culture overlaps relatively little with French, German, or English. Moreover, which parts of "Europe" are actually included in this taxonomy? Are Romani considered white? What about Southern Italians? Black people in France? It all boils down to "people of European heritage with white skin (whose ancestors wrote books and stuff that I like)," which is wishy-washy and tautological.

syntonym2 6y ago

According to this post [0] only allowing black people to post was a time limited action. As an Aprils fool joke only black people were allowed to post, which resulted in positive feedback from the community, according to the mods. Now everyone can post again, where as black people can get verified and a special flair (a small visual indication next to their username). Some threads [1] are reserved for verified people, but non-black person can also get verified (but might not get a flair). [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/b93w1j/rblackpeopletwitter_is_open_to_everyone_again/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/b93w1j/... [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/gumxuy/what_is_bpt_country_club_and_how_do_i_get/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=BlackPeopleTwitter&utm_content=t5_33x33 https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/gumxuy/...

mcculley 6y ago
That special flair thing is amazing. I had no idea. I wonder how long before we see forums using it for other skin colors and genetic types. It's exactly the opposite of the trend of text-oriented interfaces democratizing access.
Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
Your [1] has three standards for three groups of people. 1. black people who can verify and get a flair 2. non-white and non-black people who can verify but don't get a flair 3. white people can ask the moderators for entrance, but it only says they will will "receive further instructions." It's not clear what these further instructions are supposed to be. This is racist and if a right wing subreddit did it, they would have been banned years ago.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  I find it odd people aren't bringing up the obvious motivation for this. Simply calling it racism seems obtuse. Anywhere race is a topic and anyone can join, but there is no verification of identity, trolls can claim anything. How do you think it feels to be a Black member of a forum and see a White person who is taken in by a White troll pretending to be Black? Conversely, how do you think it feels to be Black and be arguing with someone White who is sure you are a White troll pretending to be Black? It's not a trivial problem, and it's inherent anywhere your online identity isn't linked to your real one.

Darmody 6y ago

If they do they will be called racists and white supremacists. And I'm the crazy one when I say social media is only banning right wingers.

lovegoblin 6y ago

> racist subreddits like /r/blackpeopletwitter and /r/fragilewhiteredditor. lmao give me a break

TheGrim-888 6y ago
For example, Reddit previously banned the "fat people hate" subreddit, where they sat around and made fun of fat people, while these subreddits, where all they do is sit around and make fun of people based on the color of their skin are allowed to prosper. If anything, a subreddit dedicated to making fun of people based on the color of their skin is a lot more bannable than making fun of people based on their weight ..
Karunamon 6y ago
The former literally segregates users by requiring them to send in a picture with their skin color visible. The latter expresses a racial prejudice in the name.

danudey 6y ago

Complaining about the /r/fragilewhiteredditor subreddit is kind of just proving their point though.

Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
Why should white people tolerate racism against themselves?
- mrguyorama 6y ago
  /r/fragilewhiteredditor is not racism. Being a "White redditor" is not a race. The sub is not about hating redditors for being white, but for talking about and possibly getting angry at people who are very blind to their prejudice or priviledges