9 ms·

Reddit will not ban 'distasteful' content, chief executive says

26 points by citricsquid 14y ago

jgrahamc 14y ago
And so I finally deleted my reddit account. Goodbye "Six Year Club" Trophy! Of course, reddit can happily decide to be a beacon for upholding free speech rights and can chose to allow distasteful subreddits. I am not going to argue with their right to do it. But at the same time I don't wish to be associated in any way with that type of content. EDIT: As there has been quite a strong reaction to me saying that I decided to delete my reddit account, I think it's worth me emphasizing what I said above about reddit being free to do as they please. I am NOT telling them how to run their site; I am merely stepping away from a community that has content that I dislike. EDIT: I think the fundamental schism is that reddit sees itself as a collection of independent web sites (subreddits); the rest of the world is likely to see it as one place. A similar thing can be said about 4chan.org. If you ignore /b/ there's other interesting content, but in the public's imagination 4chan is /b/.
- shin_lao 14y ago
  I think it comes down to "what is distasteful?".
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Compromising photos of teenagers published without their consent. (I'd go further, but I feel like that's a bright line we should all be able to agree on).
    - mnicole 14y ago
      It shouldn't be limited to minors. They had a field day with that old Gawker editor vs. Jimmy Kimmel video yesterday because she said people should understand that if they step outside of their house, they're subjecting themselves to ridicule. That is the exact same argument that r/creepshots supporters use.
    - shin_lao 14y ago
      It's illegal and has been removed.
- bduerst 14y ago
  Were you posting in said distasteful subreddits?
  - jgrahamc 14y ago
    No.
    - bduerst 14y ago
      Then what are you worried about? Did you delete your Google account because Google links to distasteful content?
      - jgrahamc 14y ago
        No, because I consider Google to be something closer to a 'common carrier' and it is to be expected that a great deal of material I don't like is accessible. Does it mean that Google condones the material? I don't think so.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
        bduerst 14y ago
        Google isn't a common carrier - the internet is a common carrier. Having an account on one website linking to content is the same as having an account on another website linking to content. I'd argue that the content on Reddit is, by percentage, less "distasteful" than what is on Google, but distasteful is a subjective term.
- gitarr 14y ago
  Be sure to delete your Gawker bookmark as well while you're at it. Here is why: http://gawker.com/upskirt http://gawker.com/upskirt
- mnicole 14y ago
  Ditto. Time to fork and move on.
- cryptoz 14y ago
  It looks like you're from the UK. Are you going to renounce your citizenship since your government has done such awful things as attacking countries like Iraq? By your logic, I should forever associate you with that decision and deride you for it.
  - jgrahamc 14y ago
    No, but in the UK I get to vote on what my government does. The closest thing to a 'vote' I have with reddit is whether I have an account or not.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  I don't understand this reasoning. For a moment, assume you're a Facebook user. There's been a rash of reporting on cyber-bullying via Facebook lately - with some tragic cases of youngsters committing suicide from the despicable actions of their online torturers. Do you intend to renounce your Facebook account also? What reasonable person would associate you with this type of deplorable behavior because you are also a Facebook user? If someone who is so ignorant that they would associate you with cyber-bullying simply because you're also a Facebook user, would you really care about the opinion of this person, and would their opinion actually matter? There will always be a particularly ignorant portion of the population that will conflate membership in a group with the actions of a subgroup. This has been true for rock music, MySpace, Facebook, rap music, goths, homosexuality, and beyond. Why pander to these individuals and let their ignorance dictate your actions? I can understand the angle of "I find this content disgusting, and I am disappointed that Reddit is not taking a hard stance against it" - if that's your position, I get you 100%. But the whole association thing I don't get.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Facebook does not publicly tolerate the use of their service to harass minors. Does this memo from the Reddit CEO sound like something Zuckerberg would say? It doesn't to me.
    - eco 14y ago
      My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of "jailbait" images that were posted on Reddit came from Facebook by way of 4chan (or at least that's what violentacrez, the mod of the now closed /r/jailbait subreddit, claims). Yesterday Facebook suggested I Like the "Sexy Teenagers" group (which had 49k Likes). Facebook is hardly a good example of place that isn't allowing the sexualization of minors.
  - jgrahamc 14y ago
    It would come down to whether Facebook had done anything about the problem or not. If Facebook had said "that's free speech and we're leaving it alone" then I would have been upset and wanted to take action (which might have meant deleting my Facebook account). I do think a lot of the content that's been talked about is disgusting. I'm not disappointed that reddit is not taking a hard stance on the matter. They have decided to uphold a notion of free speech, but given that the site will be associated with this content in the mind of the general public I would rather not be part of it.
- recapthrowaway 14y ago
  If someone were to compile a list of distasteful websites using Cloudflare would it help you quit working there to prevent you being associated with that content?
  - slig 14y ago
    Isn't the most famous and distasteful image board using CF?
  - jgrahamc 14y ago
    I feel that CloudFlare is similar to a search engine, DNS provider, hosting company, domain registrar etc. in that we are providing a shared service and inevitably some users of that service will be things that I personally dislike. As I mentioned above in an EDIT, the problem with reddit is that reddit sees itself as a group of subreddits which are different communities; everyone else sees reddit as a single entity. So, I don't want to be associated with the single entity that's supporting this content that I find distasteful.
  - stfu 14y ago
    I personally find these forms of witch hunts to censor free speech absolutely disgusting. In my opinion people who support something like this, are in the same category as those who take up the forks and march against Google because of "certain" videos, that they feel offended by. It is evidence of an absolutely intolerant, self-centered world view, that has in my view no place in a democratic society.
- lumberjack 14y ago
  Why are you still online then? The same rational can easily be applied to the Internet in place of reddit. Why are you still using the Internet?
- jmillikin 14y ago
  I also considered this, but concluded it would be counter-productive. These creepy subreddits have been allowed to exist for so long because users who disagreed decided to remain silent. They're only coming to light now because some Reddit users have decided to break their silence and speak out. If you want to help clean up Reddit, then a six-year account is a useful asset.
- MrMember 14y ago
  I'll be keeping my account, because there are several small subreddits I enjoy reading and participating in. That's the extent of my association with Reddit. I don't look at or comment on default subs, I don't make Reddit references in real life, I don't know who the current crop of Reddit 'celebrities' are. There's a much better Reddit underneath all of the garbage that makes up 'default' Reddit. I don't really care what the public image of Reddit is, because nobody in real life knows or cares that I use it.
- aes256 14y ago
  I've deleted my account for precisely the opposite reason. Reddit sold out. Their latest statement on the /r/creepshots debacle is too little, too late. If they honestly believe in free speech, they should have weathered the /r/jailbait storm rather than giving into popular pressure. Reddit is too big of a target to continue the free speech advocacy line. Back when it was a niche community that the press didn't care about, it might have worked, but not now.
- fellInchoate 14y ago
  I think you should be more embarrassed by this incredible overreaction than by any association with reddit, which has been responsible for huge fundraising events, record-breaking gift exchanges, AMAs from the POTUS, etc., etc. If you're worried about your internet reputation, I feel like comments like this aren't helping.
tptacek 14y ago
"Distasteful" subreddits that consist of compromising photos of teenagers taken without their knowledge are to be tolerated. That's "free speech", the highest ideal at Reddit. Meanwhile, "doxxing" of the people who traffic in those photos is forbidden. That's not "free speech", it's something else. However, journalism that happens to disclose identities of Reddit trolls... that's not necessarily "doxxing". It's a fine line. There is no intellectual clarity to these lines at all; they're simply gerrymandered around the proclivities of the most active Reddit users. I guess that's fine, but it's hard to pretend that there's any important ideal being defended by their management.
- betterth 14y ago
  Please refrain from commenting on subjects that you're ignorant about. "Distasteful" subreddits that consist of compromising photos of teenagers taken without their knowledge are to be tolerated." As per http://as.reddit.com/rules/ http://as.reddit.com/rules/ "No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors." These kinds of things are not tolerated on Reddit.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I think if you read my comment carefully you'll discover that I didn't say "child pornography" or "sexually suggestive content featuring minors". Are you suggesting that "child pornography" and "sexually suggestive content featuring minors" is the bright line, and that anything on the privacy spectrum that doesn't cross that line should be defended? That's the implication I get from your comment, but I'm happy to be corrected.
    - bduerst 14y ago
      Voltaire nailed it best with "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
      - tptacek 14y ago
        That's not a real argument. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no line to be drawn about what people can and can't post to Reddit? My guess is you don't support the posting of child pornography and snuff films.
potatolicious 14y ago
But they just did... Personally I don't feel strongly one way or another about the shutdown of creepshots and jailbait, but come on. "We're not going to shut down distasteful subreddits, except the ones we already did! But no more! Honest!" I guess I'll believe it when I see it. Reddit has no shortage of content that is just one viral blog post away from a PR shitstorm. This newfound (and if I may say, a bit late) respect for expression will be challenged sooner rather than later.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Since you're obviously a pretty thoughtful guy, I'm curious why you don't have a strong opinion about creepshots and jailbait. I've read the rest of what you said and inferred a sort of "pox on all their houses" message from it. Jailbait and creepshots seems like the kind of thing you'd normally have a problem with. Why don't you? (I'm asking seriously, expecting to learn something about the situation from your response, not to make a point.)
  - cdrxndr 14y ago
    I'm OK with it because I see it as a necessary evil - always considering the worst implementations of any new rules. Right now we all have the same expectation of privacy - that is we have none if in public, and none if its a digitally distributed photo. That expectation does not shift based on one's age. What if the non-consenting minor is Miley Cyrus? What if a compromising photo of police brutality has a kid in the background - can they force a take-down of my photo? Off the deep end, but I'm just pointing out that we are on a level playing field, and it's likely for the better. We obviously make many concessions to our rights to protect children, but this is not one of them. E.g., as an adult male, I can't eat my sandwich in some NY parks unless I'm accompanied by a child. I just hope the children are grateful for my sacrifice ...
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Is 'cdrxndr an alias for 'potatolicious? (If so, I'll start following that nick on HN too).
jedberg 14y ago
I'm glad to see them upholding the principles of free speech and expression that we fostered in the first few years. I always told people, my job is to provide a platform, not be a tastemaker. It is up to the users to be the tastemakers.
- buro9 14y ago
  It's up to the users and lawmakers of the country to be the tastemakers.
  - jedberg 14y ago
    Yes, of course. Any illegal content was removed without hesitation. But we're talking about legal but distasteful content.
    - buro9 14y ago
      Perhaps I should've expanded... I agree with you totally. What I think is that those who find the content distasteful should either to seek to lobby to make that content illegal, or ignore it. But seeking to force self-censorship is not the solution. I agree with you. But I would point out that if the people want to re-define unacceptable behaviour then through representation they already have the means, reddit and other sites will comply with the law.
- JoachimSchipper 14y ago
  I'm curious - do you support the removal of /r/jailbait and /r/creepshots? If so, do you really think Reddit harbors no other horrible stuff? If not, do you really think that letting those subreddits exist is a reasonable price to pay for "free speech"?
stfu 14y ago
Excellent - happy to see Reddit supporting free speech and not giving into this mainstream media bullying campaign. I wish more platforms would abide to the rule of law and not to a hypocritical rule imposed by professionally "i am outraged, there is something on the internet, that i don't like, this has to stop!!!" commentators. Kudos to Reddit!
- tptacek 14y ago
  I do not like articles on the Internet that purport to explain that the world is 9,000 years old, or that suggest that the Bible demands that women be subservient to men. I don't like articles that suggest that the world is ruled by a secret cartel of Jewish international bankers. I don't like articles that militate against taxes for capital gains or inheritances. I tolerate all of these things because they are ideas. Stupid ones, yes, but ideas. A photo of a minor taken without their consent and posted to a public forum for people to comment on is something worse than a blog post that tries to convince me that the world is 9,000 years old.
  - stfu 14y ago
    In my opinion the issue is relatively simple. If the content is illegal, then remove it. If it is not, then it stays. It can not be the task of a platform provider to conduct an in-depth investigation on who agreed or did not agree on a picture being taken. Otherwise you would need to include with every picture some form of a weaver were all persons displayed state their real age and consent to the picture.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Well then you agree with the point I made, which is that you can't stand on the ceremony of "free speech" while forbidding forms of otherwise lawful speech that happen to challenge the mores of the group, such as the names and employers of pseudonymous members of the group.
      - stfu 14y ago
ebassi 14y ago
the issue is not (only) having distasteful content; the real issue is censoring links to content that embarrasses redditors, like the Gawker outing of the reddit creep, in a shockingly hypocritical display of a double standard. you cannot "uphold the principles of free speech" by keeping creepy content under the "it's not illegal" moniker, and at the same time censor the outing of one of the moderators of said content - another perfectly legal action.
danso 14y ago
The "distasteful" content always bothered me but was something that was so disconnected from my normal use since I stay mostly in the programming and nyc subreddits...I see things like r/creepshots as being one of the downsides to the many upsides of how reddit is run, and one with no perfect solution. However, this dampened my interest in Reddit quite a bit: > Mr Wong described the decision as a mistake that was "not making Reddit look so good". The ban has now been lifted. "As admins, we chose to recognise that opponents have the right to criticise us, to expose us, to tell a story about us - even if we don't like that story or we feel it's wrong." However, individual subreddits can choose their own rules regarding what sites are blocked. One popular area, Politics, is continuing to block Gawker links. It is sickening how quickly a site that is devoted to the extremes of free speech would turn into that they despise after an investigative piece...and all of this for someone who, besides administering the "distasteful" content in question, turned tail and deleted his account after being outed.
recapthrowaway 14y ago
A pretty comprehensive recap of what's been going on if anyone is interested, it's in three parts: http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/11bypn/recapthe_great_dox_of_2012_or_doxgate_a_recap_of/ http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/11bypn/recap... http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/11byvp/recapthe_great_dox_of_2012_or_doxgate_a_recap_of/ http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/11byvp/recap... http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/11gg8v/recap_doxtober_part_iii_violentacrez_and_gawker/ http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/11gg8v/recap...
- jshu 14y ago
  Thanks, that was really interesting insight into what's going on behind the scenes. So it looks like most of this is being orchestrated by the group running SRS (ex-somethingawful?), trying to shake the foundations of reddit just to "see what happens"? I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out.
Millennium 14y ago
Good for them, I suppose, but what is their position on enabling criminal invasion of privacy?
bduerst 14y ago
I think what is being missed here is that this ban is party to a small subreddit called "ShitRedditSays". They ran a campaign to get jailbait banned, and recently to get creepshots banned, by bringing the media's attention to these subreddits.
bryanlarsen 14y ago
It seems to me that Reddit did the right thing here. How they got there is questionable, but I think they've got it right. 1) "No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors" 2) No doxxing internally, external links allowed To stay viable, Reddit has to ban internal doxxing. There have been several instances in the past of false accusations combined with doxxing which have resulted in witch hunts. But doxxing is pretty much the only defence the Internet has against legal yet hateful and harmful pseudonymous speech. So by drawing the line where they did, they've made witch hunts more difficult to pull off, but still possible. They're also just bowing to the inevitable: they can't censor the Internet, so any attempt to do so will fail. So did they do the right thing because it was the right thing, or just because it was inevitable? They really give the impression that it was the latter, so they don't come out of this affair smelling very good.
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
I think the whole creepshots thing shows how hypocritical reddit is about free speech. I thought the Gawker article did a good job describing the hive mind attitude there of "my speech is OK, but you must burn for yours". And, naturally, they responded exactly as I would expect: banning that speech. I don't envy reddit's admins regarding this topic. Their user base is extremely worked up over the notion of free speech, so any appearance of interfering will be seen in a horrible light. But things like creepshots and jailbait do horrible things for their reputation, which could leave it with a situation where it becomes another 4chan, which I don't think they want. In the end, I agree with potatolicious: this commitment to free speech will last only until the next shit storm occurs.
- danielweber 14y ago
  Reddit was following an internally consistent rule pattern when banning links to Gawker. (You can argue that following the rule pattern is stupid, like something that comes out of a large bureaucracy instead of a <10 person startup. I'd agree.) this commitment to free speech will last only until the next shit storm occurs Since reddit has shown the only times they ban anything is in response to shit storms, they have unwittingly set themselves up for more shit storms. AFAIK the people who hated creepshots got ignored when raising the question to the admins, so the only other option was to create a new shit storm. Reddit probably thinks they are sticking to their guns, but by not having any kind of release valve beyond a shit storm, they're bringing them on.
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    I suppose my original comment was not clear. I meant the reddit community, not Reddit, the company. I think the Reddit admins are being reasonably consistent (or at least trying to be). Banning the article that doxxes the guy is following their rule. Banning all of Gawker is something very different. It's a way for reddit's moderators to punish Gawker for "contempt of reddit". by not having any kind of release valve beyond a shit storm, they're bringing them on Very concise, insightful way of putting it!
nohat 14y ago
"There sure has been a lot of trouble lately for Reddit, and I'd like to talk about about that before I nip off for a spot of tea" Other issues aside, this sentence uses several British expressions. Wong does not seem to be British. Is Wong acting British because he is talking to the BBC? Is the BBC paraphrasing? That quote just seems odd and contrived.
mithaler 14y ago
As an aside, I'm starting to doubt the inherent value of Internet anonymity in the first place. There are obvious good uses for it: Wikileaks in its heyday comes to mind (that is, the time when they were actually a wiki, releasing leaks while keeping their sources safe, not going out of their way to create PR nightmares for the US government). But the vast majority of other widely-defended use cases for it seem to be people using it as a license to do nasty things like jailbait/creepshots. Even VA recognized that a compromise of his identity would mean professional ruination, even as he exposed himself and his family to that risk by revealing himself to people he thought he could trust. While Reddit definitely shouldn't start trying to "solve" the problem, clearly the use of vigilante "doxxing" as a weapon against people they don't like isn't a real solution either. Is there even a good middle ground? "Do distasteful things on peril of Gawker running a story about you"?
- aes256 14y ago
  The value of Internet (pseudo-)anonymity is not limited to the big, headline-grabbing incidents. It underlies almost all the original content posted on the Internet. Simply put, if you had to attach your real life identity to everything you posted online, original content would dry up overnight. People would no longer express their sincere opinions, they would no longer debate controversial issues. They would no longer seek help and advice for medical conditions, seek emotional support for their troubles, so on and so forth. I wouldn't be posting in this thread right now.
  - mithaler 14y ago
    What is it about this comment that you worry is so "controversial" or "dangerous" that you wouldn't consider posting it under your real name? (I'm not saying you should, I'm just curious.)
    - aes256 14y ago
      I was referring to posting in this thread generally, not that specific comment. Elsewhere in this thread I can be found defending /r/creepshots and questioning the harm caused by the subreddit. I wouldn't want these opinions attached to my real life identity, not because I don't stand by them, but because people are fucking crazy. I know there are people out there who would harass me relentlessly simply for saying /r/creepshots was harmless, no matter how much truth there is in the statement.
tokenadult 14y ago
Reddit is a private business corporate entity, and not a legislative body of the government, but this back-and-forth about what is allowed on Reddit and what is not illustrates a famous saying about how laws are made: "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Common Law (1881), p. 1. On my part, I decided not to get a second username on Reddit after being a very early adopted on Reddit, when there was a foul-up of the user database such that my user account data was lost. I figured a service that could foul up something like that (MSN did the same, years ago) was not ready for prime time, so I have never re-upped. I've never liked the immature, overly long rewritten titles on submissions, or most of the other juvenile behavior seen on Reddit. Yeah, I know, everyone would simply tell me to go look for a good subreddit. I tried that a few times, but decided that the subreddits also have their culture dragged down, even when they are about interesting topics and include thoughtful participants, by the general culture on Reddit. Rather than look for a subreddit, I try to invest in making Hacker News a better community. That works for me.

26 points by citricsquid 14y ago

And so I finally deleted my reddit account. Goodbye "Six Year Club" Trophy! Of course, reddit can happily decide to be a beacon for upholding free speech rights and can chose to allow distasteful subreddits. I am not going to argue with their right to do it. But at the same time I don't wish to be associated in any way with that type of content. EDIT: As there has been quite a strong reaction to me saying that I decided to delete my reddit account, I think it's worth me emphasizing what I said above about reddit being free to do as they please. I am NOT telling them how to run their site; I am merely stepping away from a community that has content that I dislike. EDIT: I think the fundamental schism is that reddit sees itself as a collection of independent web sites (subreddits); the rest of the world is likely to see it as one place. A similar thing can be said about 4chan.org. If you ignore /b/ there's other interesting content, but in the public's imagination 4chan is /b/.

shin_lao 14y ago
I think it comes down to "what is distasteful?".
- tptacek 14y ago
  Compromising photos of teenagers published without their consent. (I'd go further, but I feel like that's a bright line we should all be able to agree on).
  - mnicole 14y ago
    It shouldn't be limited to minors. They had a field day with that old Gawker editor vs. Jimmy Kimmel video yesterday because she said people should understand that if they step outside of their house, they're subjecting themselves to ridicule. That is the exact same argument that r/creepshots supporters use.
  - shin_lao 14y ago
    It's illegal and has been removed.
bduerst 14y ago
Were you posting in said distasteful subreddits?
- jgrahamc 14y ago
  No.
  - bduerst 14y ago
    Then what are you worried about? Did you delete your Google account because Google links to distasteful content?
    - jgrahamc 14y ago
      No, because I consider Google to be something closer to a 'common carrier' and it is to be expected that a great deal of material I don't like is accessible. Does it mean that Google condones the material? I don't think so.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - bduerst 14y ago
        Google isn't a common carrier - the internet is a common carrier. Having an account on one website linking to content is the same as having an account on another website linking to content. I'd argue that the content on Reddit is, by percentage, less "distasteful" than what is on Google, but distasteful is a subjective term.
gitarr 14y ago
Be sure to delete your Gawker bookmark as well while you're at it. Here is why: http://gawker.com/upskirt http://gawker.com/upskirt
mnicole 14y ago
Ditto. Time to fork and move on.
cryptoz 14y ago
It looks like you're from the UK. Are you going to renounce your citizenship since your government has done such awful things as attacking countries like Iraq? By your logic, I should forever associate you with that decision and deride you for it.
- jgrahamc 14y ago
  No, but in the UK I get to vote on what my government does. The closest thing to a 'vote' I have with reddit is whether I have an account or not.
potatolicious 14y ago
I don't understand this reasoning. For a moment, assume you're a Facebook user. There's been a rash of reporting on cyber-bullying via Facebook lately - with some tragic cases of youngsters committing suicide from the despicable actions of their online torturers. Do you intend to renounce your Facebook account also? What reasonable person would associate you with this type of deplorable behavior because you are also a Facebook user? If someone who is so ignorant that they would associate you with cyber-bullying simply because you're also a Facebook user, would you really care about the opinion of this person, and would their opinion actually matter? There will always be a particularly ignorant portion of the population that will conflate membership in a group with the actions of a subgroup. This has been true for rock music, MySpace, Facebook, rap music, goths, homosexuality, and beyond. Why pander to these individuals and let their ignorance dictate your actions? I can understand the angle of "I find this content disgusting, and I am disappointed that Reddit is not taking a hard stance against it" - if that's your position, I get you 100%. But the whole association thing I don't get.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Facebook does not publicly tolerate the use of their service to harass minors. Does this memo from the Reddit CEO sound like something Zuckerberg would say? It doesn't to me.
  - eco 14y ago
    My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of "jailbait" images that were posted on Reddit came from Facebook by way of 4chan (or at least that's what violentacrez, the mod of the now closed /r/jailbait subreddit, claims). Yesterday Facebook suggested I Like the "Sexy Teenagers" group (which had 49k Likes). Facebook is hardly a good example of place that isn't allowing the sexualization of minors.
- jgrahamc 14y ago
  It would come down to whether Facebook had done anything about the problem or not. If Facebook had said "that's free speech and we're leaving it alone" then I would have been upset and wanted to take action (which might have meant deleting my Facebook account). I do think a lot of the content that's been talked about is disgusting. I'm not disappointed that reddit is not taking a hard stance on the matter. They have decided to uphold a notion of free speech, but given that the site will be associated with this content in the mind of the general public I would rather not be part of it.
recapthrowaway 14y ago
If someone were to compile a list of distasteful websites using Cloudflare would it help you quit working there to prevent you being associated with that content?
- slig 14y ago
  Isn't the most famous and distasteful image board using CF?
- jgrahamc 14y ago
  I feel that CloudFlare is similar to a search engine, DNS provider, hosting company, domain registrar etc. in that we are providing a shared service and inevitably some users of that service will be things that I personally dislike. As I mentioned above in an EDIT, the problem with reddit is that reddit sees itself as a group of subreddits which are different communities; everyone else sees reddit as a single entity. So, I don't want to be associated with the single entity that's supporting this content that I find distasteful.
- stfu 14y ago
  I personally find these forms of witch hunts to censor free speech absolutely disgusting. In my opinion people who support something like this, are in the same category as those who take up the forks and march against Google because of "certain" videos, that they feel offended by. It is evidence of an absolutely intolerant, self-centered world view, that has in my view no place in a democratic society.
lumberjack 14y ago
Why are you still online then? The same rational can easily be applied to the Internet in place of reddit. Why are you still using the Internet?
jmillikin 14y ago
I also considered this, but concluded it would be counter-productive. These creepy subreddits have been allowed to exist for so long because users who disagreed decided to remain silent. They're only coming to light now because some Reddit users have decided to break their silence and speak out. If you want to help clean up Reddit, then a six-year account is a useful asset.
MrMember 14y ago
I'll be keeping my account, because there are several small subreddits I enjoy reading and participating in. That's the extent of my association with Reddit. I don't look at or comment on default subs, I don't make Reddit references in real life, I don't know who the current crop of Reddit 'celebrities' are. There's a much better Reddit underneath all of the garbage that makes up 'default' Reddit. I don't really care what the public image of Reddit is, because nobody in real life knows or cares that I use it.
aes256 14y ago
I've deleted my account for precisely the opposite reason. Reddit sold out. Their latest statement on the /r/creepshots debacle is too little, too late. If they honestly believe in free speech, they should have weathered the /r/jailbait storm rather than giving into popular pressure. Reddit is too big of a target to continue the free speech advocacy line. Back when it was a niche community that the press didn't care about, it might have worked, but not now.
fellInchoate 14y ago
I think you should be more embarrassed by this incredible overreaction than by any association with reddit, which has been responsible for huge fundraising events, record-breaking gift exchanges, AMAs from the POTUS, etc., etc. If you're worried about your internet reputation, I feel like comments like this aren't helping.

tptacek 14y ago

"Distasteful" subreddits that consist of compromising photos of teenagers taken without their knowledge are to be tolerated. That's "free speech", the highest ideal at Reddit. Meanwhile, "doxxing" of the people who traffic in those photos is forbidden. That's not "free speech", it's something else. However, journalism that happens to disclose identities of Reddit trolls... that's not necessarily "doxxing". It's a fine line. There is no intellectual clarity to these lines at all; they're simply gerrymandered around the proclivities of the most active Reddit users. I guess that's fine, but it's hard to pretend that there's any important ideal being defended by their management.

betterth 14y ago
Please refrain from commenting on subjects that you're ignorant about. "Distasteful" subreddits that consist of compromising photos of teenagers taken without their knowledge are to be tolerated." As per http://as.reddit.com/rules/ http://as.reddit.com/rules/ "No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors." These kinds of things are not tolerated on Reddit.
- tptacek 14y ago
  I think if you read my comment carefully you'll discover that I didn't say "child pornography" or "sexually suggestive content featuring minors". Are you suggesting that "child pornography" and "sexually suggestive content featuring minors" is the bright line, and that anything on the privacy spectrum that doesn't cross that line should be defended? That's the implication I get from your comment, but I'm happy to be corrected.
  - bduerst 14y ago
    Voltaire nailed it best with "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
    - tptacek 14y ago
      That's not a real argument. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no line to be drawn about what people can and can't post to Reddit? My guess is you don't support the posting of child pornography and snuff films.

potatolicious 14y ago

But they just did... Personally I don't feel strongly one way or another about the shutdown of creepshots and jailbait, but come on. "We're not going to shut down distasteful subreddits, except the ones we already did! But no more! Honest!" I guess I'll believe it when I see it. Reddit has no shortage of content that is just one viral blog post away from a PR shitstorm. This newfound (and if I may say, a bit late) respect for expression will be challenged sooner rather than later.

tptacek 14y ago
Since you're obviously a pretty thoughtful guy, I'm curious why you don't have a strong opinion about creepshots and jailbait. I've read the rest of what you said and inferred a sort of "pox on all their houses" message from it. Jailbait and creepshots seems like the kind of thing you'd normally have a problem with. Why don't you? (I'm asking seriously, expecting to learn something about the situation from your response, not to make a point.)
- cdrxndr 14y ago
  I'm OK with it because I see it as a necessary evil - always considering the worst implementations of any new rules. Right now we all have the same expectation of privacy - that is we have none if in public, and none if its a digitally distributed photo. That expectation does not shift based on one's age. What if the non-consenting minor is Miley Cyrus? What if a compromising photo of police brutality has a kid in the background - can they force a take-down of my photo? Off the deep end, but I'm just pointing out that we are on a level playing field, and it's likely for the better. We obviously make many concessions to our rights to protect children, but this is not one of them. E.g., as an adult male, I can't eat my sandwich in some NY parks unless I'm accompanied by a child. I just hope the children are grateful for my sacrifice ...
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Is 'cdrxndr an alias for 'potatolicious? (If so, I'll start following that nick on HN too).

jedberg 14y ago

I'm glad to see them upholding the principles of free speech and expression that we fostered in the first few years. I always told people, my job is to provide a platform, not be a tastemaker. It is up to the users to be the tastemakers.

buro9 14y ago
It's up to the users and lawmakers of the country to be the tastemakers.
- jedberg 14y ago
  Yes, of course. Any illegal content was removed without hesitation. But we're talking about legal but distasteful content.
  - buro9 14y ago
    Perhaps I should've expanded... I agree with you totally. What I think is that those who find the content distasteful should either to seek to lobby to make that content illegal, or ignore it. But seeking to force self-censorship is not the solution. I agree with you. But I would point out that if the people want to re-define unacceptable behaviour then through representation they already have the means, reddit and other sites will comply with the law.
JoachimSchipper 14y ago
I'm curious - do you support the removal of /r/jailbait and /r/creepshots? If so, do you really think Reddit harbors no other horrible stuff? If not, do you really think that letting those subreddits exist is a reasonable price to pay for "free speech"?

stfu 14y ago

Excellent - happy to see Reddit supporting free speech and not giving into this mainstream media bullying campaign. I wish more platforms would abide to the rule of law and not to a hypocritical rule imposed by professionally "i am outraged, there is something on the internet, that i don't like, this has to stop!!!" commentators. Kudos to Reddit!

tptacek 14y ago
I do not like articles on the Internet that purport to explain that the world is 9,000 years old, or that suggest that the Bible demands that women be subservient to men. I don't like articles that suggest that the world is ruled by a secret cartel of Jewish international bankers. I don't like articles that militate against taxes for capital gains or inheritances. I tolerate all of these things because they are ideas. Stupid ones, yes, but ideas. A photo of a minor taken without their consent and posted to a public forum for people to comment on is something worse than a blog post that tries to convince me that the world is 9,000 years old.
- stfu 14y ago
  In my opinion the issue is relatively simple. If the content is illegal, then remove it. If it is not, then it stays. It can not be the task of a platform provider to conduct an in-depth investigation on who agreed or did not agree on a picture being taken. Otherwise you would need to include with every picture some form of a weaver were all persons displayed state their real age and consent to the picture.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Well then you agree with the point I made, which is that you can't stand on the ceremony of "free speech" while forbidding forms of otherwise lawful speech that happen to challenge the mores of the group, such as the names and employers of pseudonymous members of the group.
    - stfu 14y ago

ebassi 14y ago

the issue is not (only) having distasteful content; the real issue is censoring links to content that embarrasses redditors, like the Gawker outing of the reddit creep, in a shockingly hypocritical display of a double standard. you cannot "uphold the principles of free speech" by keeping creepy content under the "it's not illegal" moniker, and at the same time censor the outing of one of the moderators of said content - another perfectly legal action.

danso 14y ago

The "distasteful" content always bothered me but was something that was so disconnected from my normal use since I stay mostly in the programming and nyc subreddits...I see things like r/creepshots as being one of the downsides to the many upsides of how reddit is run, and one with no perfect solution. However, this dampened my interest in Reddit quite a bit: > Mr Wong described the decision as a mistake that was "not making Reddit look so good". The ban has now been lifted. "As admins, we chose to recognise that opponents have the right to criticise us, to expose us, to tell a story about us - even if we don't like that story or we feel it's wrong." However, individual subreddits can choose their own rules regarding what sites are blocked. One popular area, Politics, is continuing to block Gawker links. It is sickening how quickly a site that is devoted to the extremes of free speech would turn into that they despise after an investigative piece...and all of this for someone who, besides administering the "distasteful" content in question, turned tail and deleted his account after being outed.

recapthrowaway 14y ago

A pretty comprehensive recap of what's been going on if anyone is interested, it's in three parts: http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/11bypn/recapthe_great_dox_of_2012_or_doxgate_a_recap_of/ http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/11bypn/recap... http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/11byvp/recapthe_great_dox_of_2012_or_doxgate_a_recap_of/ http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/11byvp/recap... http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/11gg8v/recap_doxtober_part_iii_violentacrez_and_gawker/ http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/11gg8v/recap...

jshu 14y ago
Thanks, that was really interesting insight into what's going on behind the scenes. So it looks like most of this is being orchestrated by the group running SRS (ex-somethingawful?), trying to shake the foundations of reddit just to "see what happens"? I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out.

Millennium 14y ago

Good for them, I suppose, but what is their position on enabling criminal invasion of privacy?

bduerst 14y ago

I think what is being missed here is that this ban is party to a small subreddit called "ShitRedditSays". They ran a campaign to get jailbait banned, and recently to get creepshots banned, by bringing the media's attention to these subreddits.

bryanlarsen 14y ago

It seems to me that Reddit did the right thing here. How they got there is questionable, but I think they've got it right. 1) "No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors" 2) No doxxing internally, external links allowed To stay viable, Reddit has to ban internal doxxing. There have been several instances in the past of false accusations combined with doxxing which have resulted in witch hunts. But doxxing is pretty much the only defence the Internet has against legal yet hateful and harmful pseudonymous speech. So by drawing the line where they did, they've made witch hunts more difficult to pull off, but still possible. They're also just bowing to the inevitable: they can't censor the Internet, so any attempt to do so will fail. So did they do the right thing because it was the right thing, or just because it was inevitable? They really give the impression that it was the latter, so they don't come out of this affair smelling very good.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago

I think the whole creepshots thing shows how hypocritical reddit is about free speech. I thought the Gawker article did a good job describing the hive mind attitude there of "my speech is OK, but you must burn for yours". And, naturally, they responded exactly as I would expect: banning that speech. I don't envy reddit's admins regarding this topic. Their user base is extremely worked up over the notion of free speech, so any appearance of interfering will be seen in a horrible light. But things like creepshots and jailbait do horrible things for their reputation, which could leave it with a situation where it becomes another 4chan, which I don't think they want. In the end, I agree with potatolicious: this commitment to free speech will last only until the next shit storm occurs.

danielweber 14y ago
Reddit was following an internally consistent rule pattern when banning links to Gawker. (You can argue that following the rule pattern is stupid, like something that comes out of a large bureaucracy instead of a <10 person startup. I'd agree.) this commitment to free speech will last only until the next shit storm occurs Since reddit has shown the only times they ban anything is in response to shit storms, they have unwittingly set themselves up for more shit storms. AFAIK the people who hated creepshots got ignored when raising the question to the admins, so the only other option was to create a new shit storm. Reddit probably thinks they are sticking to their guns, but by not having any kind of release valve beyond a shit storm, they're bringing them on.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  I suppose my original comment was not clear. I meant the reddit community, not Reddit, the company. I think the Reddit admins are being reasonably consistent (or at least trying to be). Banning the article that doxxes the guy is following their rule. Banning all of Gawker is something very different. It's a way for reddit's moderators to punish Gawker for "contempt of reddit". by not having any kind of release valve beyond a shit storm, they're bringing them on Very concise, insightful way of putting it!

nohat 14y ago

"There sure has been a lot of trouble lately for Reddit, and I'd like to talk about about that before I nip off for a spot of tea" Other issues aside, this sentence uses several British expressions. Wong does not seem to be British. Is Wong acting British because he is talking to the BBC? Is the BBC paraphrasing? That quote just seems odd and contrived.

mithaler 14y ago

As an aside, I'm starting to doubt the inherent value of Internet anonymity in the first place. There are obvious good uses for it: Wikileaks in its heyday comes to mind (that is, the time when they were actually a wiki, releasing leaks while keeping their sources safe, not going out of their way to create PR nightmares for the US government). But the vast majority of other widely-defended use cases for it seem to be people using it as a license to do nasty things like jailbait/creepshots. Even VA recognized that a compromise of his identity would mean professional ruination, even as he exposed himself and his family to that risk by revealing himself to people he thought he could trust. While Reddit definitely shouldn't start trying to "solve" the problem, clearly the use of vigilante "doxxing" as a weapon against people they don't like isn't a real solution either. Is there even a good middle ground? "Do distasteful things on peril of Gawker running a story about you"?

aes256 14y ago
The value of Internet (pseudo-)anonymity is not limited to the big, headline-grabbing incidents. It underlies almost all the original content posted on the Internet. Simply put, if you had to attach your real life identity to everything you posted online, original content would dry up overnight. People would no longer express their sincere opinions, they would no longer debate controversial issues. They would no longer seek help and advice for medical conditions, seek emotional support for their troubles, so on and so forth. I wouldn't be posting in this thread right now.
- mithaler 14y ago
  What is it about this comment that you worry is so "controversial" or "dangerous" that you wouldn't consider posting it under your real name? (I'm not saying you should, I'm just curious.)
  - aes256 14y ago
    I was referring to posting in this thread generally, not that specific comment. Elsewhere in this thread I can be found defending /r/creepshots and questioning the harm caused by the subreddit. I wouldn't want these opinions attached to my real life identity, not because I don't stand by them, but because people are fucking crazy. I know there are people out there who would harass me relentlessly simply for saying /r/creepshots was harmless, no matter how much truth there is in the statement.

tokenadult 14y ago

Reddit is a private business corporate entity, and not a legislative body of the government, but this back-and-forth about what is allowed on Reddit and what is not illustrates a famous saying about how laws are made: "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Common Law (1881), p. 1. On my part, I decided not to get a second username on Reddit after being a very early adopted on Reddit, when there was a foul-up of the user database such that my user account data was lost. I figured a service that could foul up something like that (MSN did the same, years ago) was not ready for prime time, so I have never re-upped. I've never liked the immature, overly long rewritten titles on submissions, or most of the other juvenile behavior seen on Reddit. Yeah, I know, everyone would simply tell me to go look for a good subreddit. I tried that a few times, but decided that the subreddits also have their culture dragged down, even when they are about interesting topics and include thoughtful participants, by the general culture on Reddit. Rather than look for a subreddit, I try to invest in making Hacker News a better community. That works for me.