7 ms·

Because you are not supposed to attack other redditors. Reddit Content Policy - Rule 1 Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community an

by ls15 4y ago

Because you are not supposed to attack other redditors. Reddit Content Policy - Rule 1 Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.

cowtools 4y ago
Being insulted is an "attack"?
- ls15 4y ago
  Insult a synonym for verbal attack
  - cowtools 4y ago
    So it is unacceptable now to merely insult other users? You can act coy about the meaning of this, but the usage of such language is obvious. It is trying to compare a voluntary public exchange between anonymous internet users to acts of physical violence. The usage of that word there is essentially an underhanded attempt at justifying future censorship through its ambiguous meaning. When moderators agree with the "attacked" the message becomes a bannable offense, but when moderators agree with the "attacker" the message becomes "fair criticism".
    - jfengel 4y ago
      Yes. It is unacceptable now to merely insult other users, on their platform. As well as this one.
      - cowtools 4y ago
        Whose platform is it? It's the users that make the forum valuable. Anyone can administrate a web forum. The individuals and communities should decide what speech is acceptable for them, not some unaccountable bureaucrats. I think there is a time and place for insults and flamewars. Maybe not everywhere all the time, but what you are seeing on the web today is selective enforcement of "politeness" and "civility" rules to benefit whatever side of the "flamewar" that the moderators approve of. HN is a good forum insofar as the users think that admins enforce reasonable rules and users agree to abide by those rules and not evade bans. On HN, moderation is rather sophisticated and neutral. When that changes I'll leave.
        ls15 4y ago
        > Whose platform is it? It's the users that make the forum valuable. It's the user's community and content, but Reddit Inc's platform.
        klyrs 4y ago
        > Whose platform is it? It's the users that make the forum valuable. Not if they're using the platform to make other users miserable. That's got negative value.
        jfengel 4y ago
        The platform belongs to the people who pay the web hosting cost. The people who are there for free are not the customer. They are the product.
      - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
        Insults are perfectly acceptable here so long as they're directed at people espousing locally unpopular opinions and dressed up with enough filler wordage to have a modicum of plausible deniability.
thrown_22 4y ago
I love how they changed the original first rule of Reddit: >Remember the human. When you communicate online, all you see is a computer screen. When talking to someone you might want to ask yourself "Would I say it to the person's face?" or "Would I get jumped if I said this to a buddy?" The new rule is there to allow two minutes hate against anyone who is against the current thing.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  Ironically it separates "marginalized or vulnerable groups" from the rest in the first place.
balentio 4y ago
Unless that Redditor's name is Seth Rich, then you can get away with murder.
bcrosby95 4y ago
This reads like you're allowed to attack people if they aren't part of a marginalized or vulnerable group of people.
- hoseja 4y ago
  That's exactly and explicitly right.
- kodah 4y ago
  The accepted definition of marginalized groups is actually rather large: https://www.mnpsych.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&category=division%20news&id=71:marginalized-populations https://www.mnpsych.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog... The wording in this rule is probably not great. There is a difference in promoting, "Be nice to everyone, but pay special attention where you may have a gap with marginalized folks experience" and how this rule reads. I'm not sure that there's a difference in outcomes though.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    - kodah 4y ago
      Depends on the context that it's brought up in. If you're just interjecting that fact, then yeah, I could see that being perceived as islamaphobia. That view is consistent, when a person from gender x is expressing their experience, and gender y comes along to add on that "gender x does it too" the outcome is similar, and vice versa. These are new-ish social standards, but I think reasonable if you're trying to create a space where everyone has the opportunity to share while staying topic focused in a thread. I can also see why it's potentially confusing for unknowing participants. Edit: just noticed your reply includes the term "rainbow allies" so I think we're done here. Edit: I am truly shocked I have greyed text while the person I'm replying to has fully blackened text.
      - 4y ago

by ls15 4y ago

cowtools 4y ago

Being insulted is an "attack"?

ls15 4y ago
Insult a synonym for verbal attack
- cowtools 4y ago
  So it is unacceptable now to merely insult other users? You can act coy about the meaning of this, but the usage of such language is obvious. It is trying to compare a voluntary public exchange between anonymous internet users to acts of physical violence. The usage of that word there is essentially an underhanded attempt at justifying future censorship through its ambiguous meaning. When moderators agree with the "attacked" the message becomes a bannable offense, but when moderators agree with the "attacker" the message becomes "fair criticism".
  - jfengel 4y ago
    Yes. It is unacceptable now to merely insult other users, on their platform. As well as this one.
    - cowtools 4y ago
      Whose platform is it? It's the users that make the forum valuable. Anyone can administrate a web forum. The individuals and communities should decide what speech is acceptable for them, not some unaccountable bureaucrats. I think there is a time and place for insults and flamewars. Maybe not everywhere all the time, but what you are seeing on the web today is selective enforcement of "politeness" and "civility" rules to benefit whatever side of the "flamewar" that the moderators approve of. HN is a good forum insofar as the users think that admins enforce reasonable rules and users agree to abide by those rules and not evade bans. On HN, moderation is rather sophisticated and neutral. When that changes I'll leave.
      - ls15 4y ago
        > Whose platform is it? It's the users that make the forum valuable. It's the user's community and content, but Reddit Inc's platform.
      - klyrs 4y ago
        > Whose platform is it? It's the users that make the forum valuable. Not if they're using the platform to make other users miserable. That's got negative value.
      - jfengel 4y ago
        The platform belongs to the people who pay the web hosting cost. The people who are there for free are not the customer. They are the product.
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      Insults are perfectly acceptable here so long as they're directed at people espousing locally unpopular opinions and dressed up with enough filler wordage to have a modicum of plausible deniability.

thrown_22 4y ago

I love how they changed the original first rule of Reddit: >Remember the human. When you communicate online, all you see is a computer screen. When talking to someone you might want to ask yourself "Would I say it to the person's face?" or "Would I get jumped if I said this to a buddy?" The new rule is there to allow two minutes hate against anyone who is against the current thing.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
raxxorraxor 4y ago
Ironically it separates "marginalized or vulnerable groups" from the rest in the first place.

balentio 4y ago

Unless that Redditor's name is Seth Rich, then you can get away with murder.

bcrosby95 4y ago

This reads like you're allowed to attack people if they aren't part of a marginalized or vulnerable group of people.

hoseja 4y ago
That's exactly and explicitly right.
kodah 4y ago
The accepted definition of marginalized groups is actually rather large: https://www.mnpsych.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&category=division%20news&id=71:marginalized-populations https://www.mnpsych.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog... The wording in this rule is probably not great. There is a difference in promoting, "Be nice to everyone, but pay special attention where you may have a gap with marginalized folks experience" and how this rule reads. I'm not sure that there's a difference in outcomes though.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  - kodah 4y ago
    Depends on the context that it's brought up in. If you're just interjecting that fact, then yeah, I could see that being perceived as islamaphobia. That view is consistent, when a person from gender x is expressing their experience, and gender y comes along to add on that "gender x does it too" the outcome is similar, and vice versa. These are new-ish social standards, but I think reasonable if you're trying to create a space where everyone has the opportunity to share while staying topic focused in a thread. I can also see why it's potentially confusing for unknowing participants. Edit: just noticed your reply includes the term "rainbow allies" so I think we're done here. Edit: I am truly shocked I have greyed text while the person I'm replying to has fully blackened text.
    - 4y ago