7 ms·

It will be interesting to see how far this goes, it's likely we'll look back on this as reddit's turning point - there is some really awful content on that site

It will be interesting to see how far this goes, it's likely we'll look back on this as reddit's turning point - there is some really awful content on that site. However it's ironic that people rush to defend linking to cam-of-new-hollywood-blockbuster.torrent as "just a link", declaring it can't be illegal because it's just pointing to a file, it's not hosting it and only a fool lawyer or judge nestled warmly in the pocket of the RIAA/MPAA could misunderstand this. But when that link goes to 13yearoldinabikini.jpg, a collection of 1s and 0s on someone else's server, suddenly this Link is a tool of evil and not only must it be removed, but the community celebrates the censorship and nominates more items for censorship.

carbocation 15y ago
Child pornography is dissimilar to copyright piracy. Child pornography is in a legal category unto itself, at least according to United States case law.
- z92 15y ago
  I shall be waiting for the next phase of banns on things that can lead to CP and things that are worse than CP.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Indeed. The concepts of "fair use", "safe harbor", et al are copyright concepts.
- rplnt 15y ago
  "13yearoldinabikini.jpg" probably cannot be classified as a pornography. Most of the things they banned were probably legal (I can't imagine there really was a true child pornography subreddit). But I understand having these subreddits around was a slippery slope and some content might have been over the edge. And as was already mentioned, it's hard work to control it post by post. Especially when some askreddit post accumulated the infamous reddit-hivemind and they went on reporting every single post in "targeted" subreddit (whatever the content).
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    Crotch focussed pictures of 6/7 yo girls can be classed as child pornography in the USA and UK. Also reddit was holding copies (thumbnails) and so IMO should be liable legally as distributors of said material.
maratd 15y ago
Most rules and mores are arbitrary in nature and only gain meaning in our capacity to uphold them. They're handicaps we place on ourselves. If that doesn't make sense, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle
moonchrome 15y ago
There is a difference between making something illegal and moderating a private site. Eg. I'm for freedom of speech but I'm not allowing anyone with swastika tattoos in to my house.
- Retric 15y ago
  It's surprisingly hard to come up with a balanced version of such rules. Using your example: What about a follower of the religion that symbol was stolen from? Or a hard core gamer with image of a dieing SS member from Wallenstein. As to Reddit, stock footage of Wimbledon can be less the wholesome content for people with a certain mindset. Let alone Posters from any number of bands etc. Personally, I would suggest playing it extremely safe, but at some point you need to find an arbitrary line based not one what's bad but something that says 'this' is OK. Or there is a steady march to ban an ever wider swath of content. How could she be so shameful as to show her wrists in public.
  - bigiain 15y ago
    "It's surprisingly hard to come up with a balanced version of such rules." Unless you're satisfied that the occasional "false positive" is an acceptable side effect. Sure, a "no swastika tattoos in my house" rule _might_ mean I (or the OP) end up not becoming friends with an edge-case - and that might be sad, but if the flipside is having to go to a lot of extra effort to find some more specific way of screening the neo-nazis who outnumber the edge-cases 1000:1, maybe that's a choice I'd reluctantly make. Sorry strange-religion-guy and artisticly-dubious-gamer-dude - you might just end up "collateral damage" in my fight to simplify my life.
    - yummyfajitas 15y ago
      I didn't realize Hindu's were "strange-religion-guy", being 1/7th of the planet and all. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00routesdata/0400_0499/pantheon/swastika/ganesh.jpg http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00routesdata/04... http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lspjjptRL71qzs5bqo1_500.jpg http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lspjjptRL71qzs5bqo1_500.jp...
Czarnian 15y ago
Banning child porn is hardly the beginning of a slippery slope to the iron fist of reddit censorship. Child porn is probably the one subject that is so indefensible that no one in their right mind would consider it a great loss that a major distribution channel for it was turned off. Not that I believe for a second that the degenerates won't figure out some way to either skirt the rules or find another friendly site to aid and abet them. It's a good first step, even if it was made under extreme duress.
- jaydz 15y ago
  So you believe teen girls in swimsuits is child porn? I'm sure you can find these same pictures all over facebook, should facebook remove those "child porn" images too?
  - Gygash 15y ago
    Teen girls in swimsuits can be child abuse images: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dost_test#Criteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dost_test#Criteria
- jarin 15y ago
  There are people on Reddit trying to make the case that (based on a study from the University of Hawaii), access to child porn (or, more reasonably, artificial child porn like lolicon) can significantly reduce the rates of child sexual abuse: http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/11/30/legalizing.child.pornography.linked.lower.rates.child.sex.abuse http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/11/30/legalizing.child... By the way, I'm not in any way supporting that opinion, just presenting the case that some people are making. I personally think there are probably better ways to combat child abuse than giving people lolicon.
  - pjscott 15y ago
    Sure, I would bet that there are better ways to prevent child abuse than making sure that pedophiles have access to no-children-involved virtual child porn. But would it be an improvement over the current situation? I think it might; there are definitely a lot of anonymous posts on Reddit from pedophiles who use erotic fiction and lolicon hentai to suppress desires for anything involving actual children. The broader question is: how can we improve the pedophile situation? Banning "questionable content" is politically easy, but doesn't seem to do much to protect anyone; as long as the stuff is being produced, there will be way to obtain it. It would be nice if pedophiles could get effective counseling to minimize their chances of molesting children, but currently it's very hard for pedophiles to get any sort of counseling without being reported to the police. That hardly seems ideal. Any ideas?
ugh 15y ago
It’s “Congress shall make no law”, not “Reddit shall make no rule”.
- pjscott 15y ago
  If you want to argue definitions, censorship is censorship no matter who's doing it.
- icebraining 15y ago
  It's still censorship, it's just not illegal.
  - ugh 15y ago
    Oh, I love censorship by private organizations†. Censorship is what makes my favorite news website great. Can you imagine what a mess it would be if every damn journalist could write what they wanted? Censors (commonly also called editors) are what make a lot of stuff great. Also: Are you really outraged by that? What is wrong with you? — † I make exceptions for critical communication infrastructure that is owned by a single or a small number of private organizations. Reddit is not that. Not by a long shot.
    - icebraining 15y ago
      Oh, I love censorship by private organizations†. Censorship is what makes my favorite news website great. Can you imagine what a mess it would be if every damn journalist could write what they wanted? Censors (commonly also called editors) are what make a lot of stuff great. Not all elimination of speech is censorship, only if they target content that is consider "objectionable" or "inconvenient". Other reasons for eliminating speech (like not reporting the news that they were supposed to report) are not censorship. If an editor eliminates content from an opinion piece simply because they consider it "objectionable", then it's censorship. Are you really outraged by that? Outraged? No. Who says I am? I do find it sad that Reddit isn't a place of free speech (as in, everything-except-illegality), but considering the subjectiveness of the Dost test, I can't say I blame them. What is wrong with you? Plenty.
vectorpush 15y ago
They applaud the censorship because the content is predatory. Even though images like "13yearoldinabikini.jpg" are legal, they are almost certainly scraped from some unsuspecting teenager's Facebook album. Also, remember to consider this within the scope of reddit. If reddit announced they were banning all subreddits dedicated to warez, most people would say "well duh".
- mistercow 15y ago
  > Even though images like "13yearoldinabikini.jpg" are legal, they are almost certainly scraped from some unsuspecting teenager's Facebook album. Can you explain what you mean by "predatory"? I understand that it gives you the heeby jeebies. But what predation is taking place?
  - vectorpush 15y ago
    Prey: 2 a : an animal taken by a predator as food b : one that is helpless or unable to resist attack : victim <was prey to his own appetites> In this case, the prey are unsuspecting teenage girls who are powerless to prevent horny men from prowling their Facebook profiles for photos to circulate into underage spank banks (or for personal use).
    - mistercow 15y ago
      Two things: 1. They're not at all powerless to prevent it. 2. I don't see the attack here. The idea of a man masturbating over an image taken from an underage girl's facebook may give you the willies, but it doesn't actually hurt anyone.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
moreorless 15y ago
This reminds me of Digg's situation with AACS (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Digg.com_suffers_user_revolt http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Digg.com_suffers_user_revolt)
yaks_hairbrush 15y ago
A part of the trouble is that most reddits automatically show thumbnails of linked images and videos. Now it's more than "just a link." Also keep in mind that there are no safe harbor provisions for CP as there are with copyright infringement. It makes no sense to flirt with illegality regarding CP, since one photo judged to be illegal kills Reddit.

carbocation 15y ago

Child pornography is dissimilar to copyright piracy. Child pornography is in a legal category unto itself, at least according to United States case law.

z92 15y ago
I shall be waiting for the next phase of banns on things that can lead to CP and things that are worse than CP.
sliverstorm 15y ago
Indeed. The concepts of "fair use", "safe harbor", et al are copyright concepts.
rplnt 15y ago
"13yearoldinabikini.jpg" probably cannot be classified as a pornography. Most of the things they banned were probably legal (I can't imagine there really was a true child pornography subreddit). But I understand having these subreddits around was a slippery slope and some content might have been over the edge. And as was already mentioned, it's hard work to control it post by post. Especially when some askreddit post accumulated the infamous reddit-hivemind and they went on reporting every single post in "targeted" subreddit (whatever the content).
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  Crotch focussed pictures of 6/7 yo girls can be classed as child pornography in the USA and UK. Also reddit was holding copies (thumbnails) and so IMO should be liable legally as distributors of said material.

maratd 15y ago

Most rules and mores are arbitrary in nature and only gain meaning in our capacity to uphold them. They're handicaps we place on ourselves. If that doesn't make sense, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle

moonchrome 15y ago

There is a difference between making something illegal and moderating a private site. Eg. I'm for freedom of speech but I'm not allowing anyone with swastika tattoos in to my house.

Retric 15y ago
It's surprisingly hard to come up with a balanced version of such rules. Using your example: What about a follower of the religion that symbol was stolen from? Or a hard core gamer with image of a dieing SS member from Wallenstein. As to Reddit, stock footage of Wimbledon can be less the wholesome content for people with a certain mindset. Let alone Posters from any number of bands etc. Personally, I would suggest playing it extremely safe, but at some point you need to find an arbitrary line based not one what's bad but something that says 'this' is OK. Or there is a steady march to ban an ever wider swath of content. How could she be so shameful as to show her wrists in public.
- bigiain 15y ago
  "It's surprisingly hard to come up with a balanced version of such rules." Unless you're satisfied that the occasional "false positive" is an acceptable side effect. Sure, a "no swastika tattoos in my house" rule _might_ mean I (or the OP) end up not becoming friends with an edge-case - and that might be sad, but if the flipside is having to go to a lot of extra effort to find some more specific way of screening the neo-nazis who outnumber the edge-cases 1000:1, maybe that's a choice I'd reluctantly make. Sorry strange-religion-guy and artisticly-dubious-gamer-dude - you might just end up "collateral damage" in my fight to simplify my life.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    I didn't realize Hindu's were "strange-religion-guy", being 1/7th of the planet and all. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00routesdata/0400_0499/pantheon/swastika/ganesh.jpg http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00routesdata/04... http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lspjjptRL71qzs5bqo1_500.jpg http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lspjjptRL71qzs5bqo1_500.jp...

Czarnian 15y ago

Banning child porn is hardly the beginning of a slippery slope to the iron fist of reddit censorship. Child porn is probably the one subject that is so indefensible that no one in their right mind would consider it a great loss that a major distribution channel for it was turned off. Not that I believe for a second that the degenerates won't figure out some way to either skirt the rules or find another friendly site to aid and abet them. It's a good first step, even if it was made under extreme duress.

jaydz 15y ago
So you believe teen girls in swimsuits is child porn? I'm sure you can find these same pictures all over facebook, should facebook remove those "child porn" images too?
- Gygash 15y ago
  Teen girls in swimsuits can be child abuse images: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dost_test#Criteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dost_test#Criteria
jarin 15y ago
There are people on Reddit trying to make the case that (based on a study from the University of Hawaii), access to child porn (or, more reasonably, artificial child porn like lolicon) can significantly reduce the rates of child sexual abuse: http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/11/30/legalizing.child.pornography.linked.lower.rates.child.sex.abuse http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/11/30/legalizing.child... By the way, I'm not in any way supporting that opinion, just presenting the case that some people are making. I personally think there are probably better ways to combat child abuse than giving people lolicon.
- pjscott 15y ago
  Sure, I would bet that there are better ways to prevent child abuse than making sure that pedophiles have access to no-children-involved virtual child porn. But would it be an improvement over the current situation? I think it might; there are definitely a lot of anonymous posts on Reddit from pedophiles who use erotic fiction and lolicon hentai to suppress desires for anything involving actual children. The broader question is: how can we improve the pedophile situation? Banning "questionable content" is politically easy, but doesn't seem to do much to protect anyone; as long as the stuff is being produced, there will be way to obtain it. It would be nice if pedophiles could get effective counseling to minimize their chances of molesting children, but currently it's very hard for pedophiles to get any sort of counseling without being reported to the police. That hardly seems ideal. Any ideas?

ugh 15y ago

It’s “Congress shall make no law”, not “Reddit shall make no rule”.

pjscott 15y ago
If you want to argue definitions, censorship is censorship no matter who's doing it.
icebraining 15y ago
It's still censorship, it's just not illegal.
- ugh 15y ago
  Oh, I love censorship by private organizations†. Censorship is what makes my favorite news website great. Can you imagine what a mess it would be if every damn journalist could write what they wanted? Censors (commonly also called editors) are what make a lot of stuff great. Also: Are you really outraged by that? What is wrong with you? — † I make exceptions for critical communication infrastructure that is owned by a single or a small number of private organizations. Reddit is not that. Not by a long shot.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Oh, I love censorship by private organizations†. Censorship is what makes my favorite news website great. Can you imagine what a mess it would be if every damn journalist could write what they wanted? Censors (commonly also called editors) are what make a lot of stuff great. Not all elimination of speech is censorship, only if they target content that is consider "objectionable" or "inconvenient". Other reasons for eliminating speech (like not reporting the news that they were supposed to report) are not censorship. If an editor eliminates content from an opinion piece simply because they consider it "objectionable", then it's censorship. Are you really outraged by that? Outraged? No. Who says I am? I do find it sad that Reddit isn't a place of free speech (as in, everything-except-illegality), but considering the subjectiveness of the Dost test, I can't say I blame them. What is wrong with you? Plenty.

vectorpush 15y ago

They applaud the censorship because the content is predatory. Even though images like "13yearoldinabikini.jpg" are legal, they are almost certainly scraped from some unsuspecting teenager's Facebook album. Also, remember to consider this within the scope of reddit. If reddit announced they were banning all subreddits dedicated to warez, most people would say "well duh".

mistercow 15y ago
> Even though images like "13yearoldinabikini.jpg" are legal, they are almost certainly scraped from some unsuspecting teenager's Facebook album. Can you explain what you mean by "predatory"? I understand that it gives you the heeby jeebies. But what predation is taking place?
- vectorpush 15y ago
  Prey: 2 a : an animal taken by a predator as food b : one that is helpless or unable to resist attack : victim <was prey to his own appetites> In this case, the prey are unsuspecting teenage girls who are powerless to prevent horny men from prowling their Facebook profiles for photos to circulate into underage spank banks (or for personal use).
  - mistercow 15y ago
    Two things: 1. They're not at all powerless to prevent it. 2. I don't see the attack here. The idea of a man masturbating over an image taken from an underage girl's facebook may give you the willies, but it doesn't actually hurt anyone.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

moreorless 15y ago

This reminds me of Digg's situation with AACS (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Digg.com_suffers_user_revolt http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Digg.com_suffers_user_revolt)

yaks_hairbrush 15y ago

A part of the trouble is that most reddits automatically show thumbnails of linked images and videos. Now it's more than "just a link." Also keep in mind that there are no safe harbor provisions for CP as there are with copyright infringement. It makes no sense to flirt with illegality regarding CP, since one photo judged to be illegal kills Reddit.