5 ms·

What concerns me here is that they made this change not because it was the right thing to do (if that were the case, this would've happened months ago, when the

What concerns me here is that they made this change not because it was the right thing to do (if that were the case, this would've happened months ago, when the controversy initially surfaced). Instead, they did it after a concerted campaign by SA. Who's to say that SA couldn't/won't do the same to get other topics banned as well? Of course, the nice thing about the internet is that we can route around these issues. The fact that the software powering Reddit is open source[0] only makes it easer. 0: https://github.com/reddit/reddit/wiki https://github.com/reddit/reddit/wiki

owenmarshall 15y ago
Are you honestly trying to set up a slippery slope argument starting with child pornography? There's a significant difference between protected speech and illegal material. Reddit (finally) cracked down on illegal material. Let's talk when they crack down on legal speech.
- doublextremevil 15y ago
  They are cracking down on illegal speech (in the form of blatant CP) in addition to legal speech (in the form of suggestive, but non-pornographic pictures anyone under 18). EDIT: Unless I am mistaken?
  - owenmarshall 15y ago
    You might want to review the Dost test & some of the links I & others have posted in this thread. It's very possible that what you think of as child pornography may only be a subset of what the law holds to be illegal.
    - doublextremevil 15y ago
      Pornographic images are more broadly defined than i had previously realized. Free speech is more restricted under case law than i had imagined, too; if it is "obscene" it can be banned. Not sure if i agree with that, but it is what it is.
- pjscott 15y ago
  Reddit already disallowed illegal material. The announcement is that they're broadening that to include a fair amount of legal material as well.
  - ceol 15y ago
    Nothing they've removed is legal. A child does not have to be nude to constitute child pornography.
    - icebraining 15y ago
      But a picture of a child is not automatically pornography either. Of course there were plenty of legal pictures removed.
      - ceol 15y ago
        The number of illegal pictures far outweighed the number of pictures you could construe as legal, and even then, the subreddit itself was illegal.
        icebraining 15y ago
        The number of illegal pictures far outweighed the number of pictures you could construe as legal Considering the subjectiveness of the legal rules, I find that impossible to know unless each pictures was considered by a court. In any case, if most of r/jailbait was illegal, I don't see why Vanity Fair isn't, considering the 15-year-old Miley Cyrus photoshoot, or Wikipedia considering the album cover of Virgin Killer. the subreddit itself was illegal. How so? What law did it break?
        ceol 15y ago
        >Considering the subjectiveness of the legal rules, I find that impossible to know unless each pictures was considered by a court. Then this entire argument is moot, is it not? If you require a court to verify each photograph, you do not belong in this discussion. >In any case, if most of r/jailbait was illegal, I don't see why Vanity Fair isn't, considering the 15-year-old Miley Cyrus photoshoot, or Wikipedia considering the album cover of Virgin Killer. Do you really not see the difference between a Vanity Fair photo shoot and an album's cover art to photos taken and collected of underage children for the sexual gratification of others? >How so? What law did it break? Its moderators distributed and promoted child pornography.
- w1ntermute 15y ago
  You completely missed my point here. Reddit didn't crack down on the material because it was illegal, they cracked down on it because SA decided to launch a campaign against it. If the Reddit admins had been concerned about hosting illegal material, they would have banned all such material months ago, when Andersoon Cooper mentioned its presence on Reddit on national TV. This sets a dangerous precedent - that anyone who wants to get any sort of material banned from Reddit just needs to whip up SA (or an internet forum of similar influence) into a frenzy. My concerns are largely orthogonal to the fact that the particular type of content against which SA launched a campaign today was child pornography.
  - owenmarshall 15y ago
    Yeah, I think that's a strange view. Reddit finally banned illegal child pornography because they were afraid of the media shitstorm that would arise from not cracking down on child pornography the first time they knew about it. If SA "gets whipped up" about any other type of content that isn't illegal, what's the harm? Reddit admins were afraid for a good reason - any more attention to the fact that they knew about child pornography and did nothing would be a big problem.
    - w1ntermute 15y ago
      > Reddit finally banned illegal child pornography because they were afraid of the media shitstorm that would arise from not cracking down on child pornography the first time they knew about it. No, they knew about it months ago, when they banned /r/jailbait in response to AC360 coverage. But that's all they did, despite being aware of the presence of numerous other subreddits offering similar fare. > If SA "gets whipped up" about any other type of content that isn't illegal, what's the harm? The harm is that the Reddit admins banning this sort of material had nothing to do with the fact that it was illegal (they already knew that a long time ago, as I stated above). The sole reason seems to be that SA had launched a campaign against it. So if SA launches a similar campaign against something else that isn't illegal, one can logically conclude that the Reddit admins would once again cave and ban that material as well. > Reddit admins were afraid for a good reason - any more attention to the fact that they knew about child pornography and did nothing would be a big problem. And here we get to the fundamental problem. As I stated in my initial post, this was a response to a potential PR shitstorm. It had nothing to do with purported illegality of the material, or it would've been banned a long time ago.
- cgoddard 15y ago
  It's not my understanding that there was actual verified child pornography on the site that wasn't being removed when it was discovered. There were photo groups on the site with questionably legal photos of clothed underage children. I always assumed those Reddit groups were serving as honeypots to nab child pornographers once enough information could be gathered. I'd be really surprised if Reddit didn't have an information sharing deal worked out with the Feds like 4chan did a while back, considering the high visibility of certain groups like r/jailbait and the like. My only thinking on the reason for this was that the bad publicity generated by the SA campaign was too much for the site. Once CNN picks up the story that your site is hosting child pornography, its probably best to reevaluate.
darien 15y ago
Are you w1ntermute of binrev fame?
ugh 15y ago
But it is the right thing to do. It obviously is. Why do you think it isn’t?
dodedo 15y ago
Indeed, it is quite clear this content is not illegal -- and does anyone think the authorities are not aware of these subreddits? Anderson Cooper mentioned this stuff on television, for crying out loud. Today the reddit staff censored some unpopular content purely because it was unpopular and made them look bad.
- bermanoid 15y ago
  Today the reddit staff censored some unpopular content purely because it was unpopular and made them look bad. It's not that simple - look at all the responses in this thread. You've got plenty people here claiming that all of the content in all of those sub-reddits was clearly illegal, some people arguing that it was half and half, some arguing that it's all legit. I don't even know what was in the sub-reddits, but I can tell you for sure that if there's this much disagreement over whether most of it is legal or not, that's a nasty legal minefield that I certainly would not want to make decisions about, especially given that I'd be risking both my company and my own freedom if I happened to make a mistake and let something prosecutable through. Not to mention that I'm sure there was a lot of work involved in deciding these things on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I'd be much more comfortable with the situation if Reddit had decided early on to place a blanket ban on these types of sub-reddits under this justification, rather than waiting until the PR shitstorm started up, but even if it is just a face-saving move at this point, I think the logic is pretty sound. I think other user-submitted content sites would probably be wise to adopt this sort of policy, even if Reddit screwed up and was too lenient at the start.
  - dodedo 15y ago
    It's irrelevant what the people here or elsewhere think -- as you say there are many dissenting opinions but very few professional legal opinions. Rather than dally with opinions, let's stick to facts: The authorities will shut down sites with illegal activities and the authorities are aware of these subreddits. The authorities did not intervene. Regarding your comfort with blanket bans, you may want to read this other article recently posted to HN which offers a much more insightful analysis: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3585997 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3585997

owenmarshall 15y ago

Are you honestly trying to set up a slippery slope argument starting with child pornography? There's a significant difference between protected speech and illegal material. Reddit (finally) cracked down on illegal material. Let's talk when they crack down on legal speech.

doublextremevil 15y ago
They are cracking down on illegal speech (in the form of blatant CP) in addition to legal speech (in the form of suggestive, but non-pornographic pictures anyone under 18). EDIT: Unless I am mistaken?
- owenmarshall 15y ago
  You might want to review the Dost test & some of the links I & others have posted in this thread. It's very possible that what you think of as child pornography may only be a subset of what the law holds to be illegal.
  - doublextremevil 15y ago
    Pornographic images are more broadly defined than i had previously realized. Free speech is more restricted under case law than i had imagined, too; if it is "obscene" it can be banned. Not sure if i agree with that, but it is what it is.
pjscott 15y ago
Reddit already disallowed illegal material. The announcement is that they're broadening that to include a fair amount of legal material as well.
- ceol 15y ago
  Nothing they've removed is legal. A child does not have to be nude to constitute child pornography.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    But a picture of a child is not automatically pornography either. Of course there were plenty of legal pictures removed.
    - ceol 15y ago
      The number of illegal pictures far outweighed the number of pictures you could construe as legal, and even then, the subreddit itself was illegal.
      - icebraining 15y ago
        The number of illegal pictures far outweighed the number of pictures you could construe as legal Considering the subjectiveness of the legal rules, I find that impossible to know unless each pictures was considered by a court. In any case, if most of r/jailbait was illegal, I don't see why Vanity Fair isn't, considering the 15-year-old Miley Cyrus photoshoot, or Wikipedia considering the album cover of Virgin Killer. the subreddit itself was illegal. How so? What law did it break?
        ceol 15y ago
        >Considering the subjectiveness of the legal rules, I find that impossible to know unless each pictures was considered by a court. Then this entire argument is moot, is it not? If you require a court to verify each photograph, you do not belong in this discussion. >In any case, if most of r/jailbait was illegal, I don't see why Vanity Fair isn't, considering the 15-year-old Miley Cyrus photoshoot, or Wikipedia considering the album cover of Virgin Killer. Do you really not see the difference between a Vanity Fair photo shoot and an album's cover art to photos taken and collected of underage children for the sexual gratification of others? >How so? What law did it break? Its moderators distributed and promoted child pornography.
w1ntermute 15y ago
You completely missed my point here. Reddit didn't crack down on the material because it was illegal, they cracked down on it because SA decided to launch a campaign against it. If the Reddit admins had been concerned about hosting illegal material, they would have banned all such material months ago, when Andersoon Cooper mentioned its presence on Reddit on national TV. This sets a dangerous precedent - that anyone who wants to get any sort of material banned from Reddit just needs to whip up SA (or an internet forum of similar influence) into a frenzy. My concerns are largely orthogonal to the fact that the particular type of content against which SA launched a campaign today was child pornography.
- owenmarshall 15y ago
  Yeah, I think that's a strange view. Reddit finally banned illegal child pornography because they were afraid of the media shitstorm that would arise from not cracking down on child pornography the first time they knew about it. If SA "gets whipped up" about any other type of content that isn't illegal, what's the harm? Reddit admins were afraid for a good reason - any more attention to the fact that they knew about child pornography and did nothing would be a big problem.
  - w1ntermute 15y ago
    > Reddit finally banned illegal child pornography because they were afraid of the media shitstorm that would arise from not cracking down on child pornography the first time they knew about it. No, they knew about it months ago, when they banned /r/jailbait in response to AC360 coverage. But that's all they did, despite being aware of the presence of numerous other subreddits offering similar fare. > If SA "gets whipped up" about any other type of content that isn't illegal, what's the harm? The harm is that the Reddit admins banning this sort of material had nothing to do with the fact that it was illegal (they already knew that a long time ago, as I stated above). The sole reason seems to be that SA had launched a campaign against it. So if SA launches a similar campaign against something else that isn't illegal, one can logically conclude that the Reddit admins would once again cave and ban that material as well. > Reddit admins were afraid for a good reason - any more attention to the fact that they knew about child pornography and did nothing would be a big problem. And here we get to the fundamental problem. As I stated in my initial post, this was a response to a potential PR shitstorm. It had nothing to do with purported illegality of the material, or it would've been banned a long time ago.
cgoddard 15y ago
It's not my understanding that there was actual verified child pornography on the site that wasn't being removed when it was discovered. There were photo groups on the site with questionably legal photos of clothed underage children. I always assumed those Reddit groups were serving as honeypots to nab child pornographers once enough information could be gathered. I'd be really surprised if Reddit didn't have an information sharing deal worked out with the Feds like 4chan did a while back, considering the high visibility of certain groups like r/jailbait and the like. My only thinking on the reason for this was that the bad publicity generated by the SA campaign was too much for the site. Once CNN picks up the story that your site is hosting child pornography, its probably best to reevaluate.

darien 15y ago

Are you w1ntermute of binrev fame?

ugh 15y ago

But it is the right thing to do. It obviously is. Why do you think it isn’t?

dodedo 15y ago

Indeed, it is quite clear this content is not illegal -- and does anyone think the authorities are not aware of these subreddits? Anderson Cooper mentioned this stuff on television, for crying out loud. Today the reddit staff censored some unpopular content purely because it was unpopular and made them look bad.

bermanoid 15y ago
Today the reddit staff censored some unpopular content purely because it was unpopular and made them look bad. It's not that simple - look at all the responses in this thread. You've got plenty people here claiming that all of the content in all of those sub-reddits was clearly illegal, some people arguing that it was half and half, some arguing that it's all legit. I don't even know what was in the sub-reddits, but I can tell you for sure that if there's this much disagreement over whether most of it is legal or not, that's a nasty legal minefield that I certainly would not want to make decisions about, especially given that I'd be risking both my company and my own freedom if I happened to make a mistake and let something prosecutable through. Not to mention that I'm sure there was a lot of work involved in deciding these things on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I'd be much more comfortable with the situation if Reddit had decided early on to place a blanket ban on these types of sub-reddits under this justification, rather than waiting until the PR shitstorm started up, but even if it is just a face-saving move at this point, I think the logic is pretty sound. I think other user-submitted content sites would probably be wise to adopt this sort of policy, even if Reddit screwed up and was too lenient at the start.
- dodedo 15y ago
  It's irrelevant what the people here or elsewhere think -- as you say there are many dissenting opinions but very few professional legal opinions. Rather than dally with opinions, let's stick to facts: The authorities will shut down sites with illegal activities and the authorities are aware of these subreddits. The authorities did not intervene. Regarding your comfort with blanket bans, you may want to read this other article recently posted to HN which offers a much more insightful analysis: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3585997 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3585997