3 ms·

>By acting proactively instead of reacting to PR pressure, Tumblr has basically drawn a line where their content policy lies, and they shown that they will dete

>By acting proactively instead of reacting to PR pressure, Tumblr has basically drawn a line where their content policy lies, and they shown that they will determine what does and does not violate it - not some angry blog, community vote, or other mob-based "democracy". I don't think you understand how/why the reddit decision went down. Reddit was under pressure because users were trading CP behind the scenes or asking for it in comments. They responded by simply saying "No more sexual pictures of any nature under 18, child pornography or otherwise". Still a new policy being implemented on their user base, but at least there is something somewhat defined in terms of criteria for disallowed content. Ultimately, "We will ban anything we deem self-injury" is far from a bright line in my opinion. The fact that Something Awful started the reddit discussion and Tumblr did this themselves is barely important in my opinion, at least from the angle I'm coming from. I'm obviously no more happy with a mob in charge of determining "appropriateness", but then again, I'm not really happy at all with someone arbitrarily telling me what is or isn't appropriate to say. Hence why I host my own blog.

potatolicious 15y ago
It's a far brighter line than "we will ban anything that presents a PR threat". Let's back up and clarify. The traditional claim of slippery slope is that today we're going after suicide blogs, tomorrow we'll be going after offensive lyrics, talk about drugs, and we will continue sliding down the slope of banning ever more and more types of content. I just don't see this happening here. There is some play in the way the policy has been defined, but it certainly isn't a wide gaping hole. The definition of "self-harm" can only be stretched somewhat before you hit its limits. Compare with what Reddit has been dealing with - which is in my view a real slippery slope problem. They've basically announced to the world that they will alter site policy to ban any content that can muster a large enough PR catastrophe. This creates a huge incentive to groups to do exactly that and see their pet peeve content types banned. And indeed we saw that - no sooner had the CP subreddits disappeared did people start calling for the banning of dead baby pics, talk about beating women, etc. Reddit has lost that game, permanently. The line between acceptable and unacceptable is now drawn by a community of millions, instead of the focused judgment of a few, and is subject to movement based on the whims of the masses. Tumblr doesn't suffer from this.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  I agree with you in regards to reddit and I very, very much feel the same way. The phrase I used and use is that it was "disappointing". I think you're right in your concern about reacting to the mob mentality, I guess for me, it's like politics. Do I want a king telling me I can't do anything that offends him? Or a scorned Senate telling me what I can/can't do? (Neither :P) I don't think the "mob" is better necessarily, but maybe I just mistakenly feel like it gives me a microscopic modicum of influence on it. Or I guess I feel that increasing the number of people that have influence on the decision decreases the chances of their being something "arbitrary". Does that make sense? As another example, if a subreddit has one moderator that goes around banning people he doesn't like, versus a panel of mods that provide checks on that. I don't consider myself a creative person, but I can already think of a decent list of things that people consider "dangerous" that I don't (and vice-versa). I mean, pick any random social-political issue and it's not hard to think of things that one side or the other considers offensive or cruel to say. I won't keep going because I think we probably agree a lot here, but I've discussed a few examples in my other replies on this thread.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    You're right, but I think your point is aside from the issue of slippery slope. A king may be a jackbooted oppressor, but he's consistent and more or less unwavering. A mob of peasants protesting the color of the flag is unlikely to get him to change anything. That's the point I was trying to make - Tumblr is the king, and is unlikely to change their tune dramatically, and thus, little risk of this new policy creating ever more new ones. Is it desirable to have this much power in one place? Maybe. Maybe not. But whether or not this is a desirable or fair system is quite separate from whether or not this system is easily susceptible to slippery slope attacks. Keep in mind that Tumblr is also not almighty here. Tumblr rules over a kingdom where people can emigrate effortlessly. It may not be democratic, but this presents a natural check on its power. > "Or I guess I feel that increasing the number of people that have influence on the decision decreases the chances of their being something "arbitrary"." I think this is where our philosophies diverge. The more cooks in the kitchen, the more arbitrary the meal is going to be, as each one is out to craft their perfect meal. This might be ok if every person has equal influence on the decision, maybe (cue argument about tyranny of the majority, etc), but in a community-driven voice-driven case, it's less about community consensus and more about which tiny minority can rally the strongest army.

potatolicious 15y ago

It's a far brighter line than "we will ban anything that presents a PR threat". Let's back up and clarify. The traditional claim of slippery slope is that today we're going after suicide blogs, tomorrow we'll be going after offensive lyrics, talk about drugs, and we will continue sliding down the slope of banning ever more and more types of content. I just don't see this happening here. There is some play in the way the policy has been defined, but it certainly isn't a wide gaping hole. The definition of "self-harm" can only be stretched somewhat before you hit its limits. Compare with what Reddit has been dealing with - which is in my view a real slippery slope problem. They've basically announced to the world that they will alter site policy to ban any content that can muster a large enough PR catastrophe. This creates a huge incentive to groups to do exactly that and see their pet peeve content types banned. And indeed we saw that - no sooner had the CP subreddits disappeared did people start calling for the banning of dead baby pics, talk about beating women, etc. Reddit has lost that game, permanently. The line between acceptable and unacceptable is now drawn by a community of millions, instead of the focused judgment of a few, and is subject to movement based on the whims of the masses. Tumblr doesn't suffer from this.

drivebyacct2 15y ago
I agree with you in regards to reddit and I very, very much feel the same way. The phrase I used and use is that it was "disappointing". I think you're right in your concern about reacting to the mob mentality, I guess for me, it's like politics. Do I want a king telling me I can't do anything that offends him? Or a scorned Senate telling me what I can/can't do? (Neither :P) I don't think the "mob" is better necessarily, but maybe I just mistakenly feel like it gives me a microscopic modicum of influence on it. Or I guess I feel that increasing the number of people that have influence on the decision decreases the chances of their being something "arbitrary". Does that make sense? As another example, if a subreddit has one moderator that goes around banning people he doesn't like, versus a panel of mods that provide checks on that. I don't consider myself a creative person, but I can already think of a decent list of things that people consider "dangerous" that I don't (and vice-versa). I mean, pick any random social-political issue and it's not hard to think of things that one side or the other considers offensive or cruel to say. I won't keep going because I think we probably agree a lot here, but I've discussed a few examples in my other replies on this thread.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  You're right, but I think your point is aside from the issue of slippery slope. A king may be a jackbooted oppressor, but he's consistent and more or less unwavering. A mob of peasants protesting the color of the flag is unlikely to get him to change anything. That's the point I was trying to make - Tumblr is the king, and is unlikely to change their tune dramatically, and thus, little risk of this new policy creating ever more new ones. Is it desirable to have this much power in one place? Maybe. Maybe not. But whether or not this is a desirable or fair system is quite separate from whether or not this system is easily susceptible to slippery slope attacks. Keep in mind that Tumblr is also not almighty here. Tumblr rules over a kingdom where people can emigrate effortlessly. It may not be democratic, but this presents a natural check on its power. > "Or I guess I feel that increasing the number of people that have influence on the decision decreases the chances of their being something "arbitrary"." I think this is where our philosophies diverge. The more cooks in the kitchen, the more arbitrary the meal is going to be, as each one is out to craft their perfect meal. This might be ok if every person has equal influence on the decision, maybe (cue argument about tyranny of the majority, etc), but in a community-driven voice-driven case, it's less about community consensus and more about which tiny minority can rally the strongest army.