5 ms·

I find the rules to be fairly clear. 1) You can't ban content just because it offends someone, there wouldn't be much content left, if any. Is religion distast

I find the rules to be fairly clear. 1) You can't ban content just because it offends someone, there wouldn't be much content left, if any. Is religion distasteful? Violent images of war? Gay marriage? And it's not like a user is forced into subreddits to view content they don't like. The whole point of the site is for individual users to make decisions on the type of content they are viewing and participating in. 2) "doxxing" isn't some random rule they came up with to protect people who post 'distasteful' photos. AFAIK it's been a long-standing issue to prevent users from rallying users to harass other users outside of the site, whether it's justified or not. Instances in the past have seen people twist facts about a story to make someone out to be a bad buy, post that person's personal information and then that person is harassed via phone calls, emails, letters about some non-existent offense they are accused to have perpetrated. I'm not sure the specifics on the Gawker ban issue though, so I can't speak to that.

tptacek 14y ago
You'd think maybe posting photos of minors without their consent might also have been a rule to prevent long-standing issues. But, no?
- Goronmon 14y ago
  You'd think maybe posting photos of minors without their consent might also have been a rule to prevent long-standing issues. But, no? What is the long-standing issue that you would be preventing though? It's creepy and wrong to be sure, but say banning a specific subreddit with that content, what is the result of that action? With doxxing you have documented cases of people being harassed based on people finding out their true identity. So banning doxxing helps to prevent situations where people are harassed outside of the site for the things they do on the site.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Interrogate the assertion that those photos are "creepy and wrong". Why are they creepy and wrong? I think you'll find the answer to your question in there.
    - Goronmon 14y ago
      Interrogate the assertion that those photos are "creepy and wrong". Why are they creepy and wrong? I think you'll find the answer to your question in there. Or you could just answer my question.
    - fosap 14y ago
      Thinks that you don't like are creepy. Browsing photos on facebook is creepy. Watching anime is creepy. Two males kissing or merely being gay is creepy. Why would anybody give a fuck if you think something is creepy?
      - tptacek 14y ago
        No, that's not my argument. The creepiness of these particular photos was his assertion, and I suggested that he interrogate his assertion about why they were creepy (and "wrong") to help see why these photos are in particular problematic. I was specifically not litigating the enforceability of "creepiness" standards. For what it's worth: Watching anime isn't creepy. Two males kissing isn't creepy.
        fosap 14y ago
        Ah, ok, my bad. But. Watching anime and two males kissing is definitively creepy. Ask any high schooler.
        tptacek 14y ago
        I agree that this is a good illustration of why "creepiness" isn't a moral or practical standard.
  - tzs 14y ago
    > With doxxing you have documented cases of people being harassed based on people finding out their true identity. So banning doxxing helps to prevent situations where people are harassed outside of the site for the things they do on the site. And banning posting candid sexually suggestive photos of kids helps to prevent the subjects of the photos from getting harassed at school when someone finds the photos online. I don't see why that should be any less important than trying to prevent harassment of people who take and post those photos. At least the person who gets harassed over posting the photos is getting harassed for something he actually deliberately did, whereas the kid might be getting harassed for accidentally showing some cleavage or some underwear. Or maybe it is ultimately the kid's fault for not dressing like a Saudi woman when in public.
- xxpor 14y ago
  I don't know what these pictures were like because I had never been on creepshots, but if they were taken in public, there isn't really anything (legally) wrong with them. People in public spaces can be photographed without their consent. That's a very clear rule, at least in the US. See: http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
  - tptacek 14y ago
    The lawfulness of those photos has been disputed. But either way, posting the name, phone number, and employer of someone posting photos to Reddit is also not against the law.
  - sentenza 14y ago
    So public humiliation in the form of an online-pillory is OK? Because that is exactly what this is. A platform for the public humiliation of women who walk in public. If we don't tolerate it for the guilty, why should we tolerate it for the innocent?
- fosap 14y ago
  No, i don't see why. It is a long standing rule that posting photos about Scientology without their consent is ok. I don't what sense this rule would would make. As long as nobody can google it (since no name) no one is hurt. So what?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I don't understand the equivalence between Scientologists and minors.
    - fosap 14y ago
      There is no difference. It's ok to posts photos without consent or it is not. Or tell me where you draw the line. /edit Or why the consent of a random 17 year old girl has more value that the consent of a random 20 year old guy working at a random CoS org.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        I am drawing the line at compromising (sexualized, objectified, or deliberately embarrassing) photos of minors. So again, I don't see the equivalence.
        fosap 14y ago
        What is compromising? Photos of feet? Completely harmless to most people, for some better than tits. There is also a hair fetish. And probably there are a way more. Only post pictures of people wearing burkas?
        danielweber 14y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager (boy it's hard to post a URL with a ' in it)
        14y ago
jmillikin 14y ago
> You can't ban content just because it offends someone, > there wouldn't be much content left, if any. Is religion > distasteful? Violent images of war? Gay marriage? That's a slippery-slope argument, and it's ridiculous in this case. Reddit isn't being pressured to ban any and all offensive content; they're being pressured specifically about sexually-suggestive photographs of underage girls, created without consent. In fact, Reddit already has rules against this sort of content. From their user agreement: "You further agree not to use any sexually suggestive language or to provide to or post on or through the Website any graphics, text, photographs, images, video, audio or other material that is sexually suggestive or appeals to a prurient interest." So what the pressure is really about is Reddit ignoring their own rules to benefit one of their personal friends, and a small horde of terrible people defending this decision by pretending that teenage upskirts are free speech.
- Goronmon 14y ago
  That's a slippery-slope argument, and it's ridiculous in this case. Reddit isn't being pressured to ban any and all offensive content; they're being pressured specifically about sexually-suggestive photographs of underage girls, created without consent. Haven't they already decided not to allow the pictures of underage girls? I could be wrong, but I thought that had happened a while ago with the closing of /r/jailbait or some similar subreddit.
  - jmillikin 14y ago
    > Haven't they already decided not to allow the pictures > of underage girls? I could be wrong, but I thought that > had happened a while ago with the closing of /r/jailbait > or some similar subreddit. They close particular subreddits when they become widely featured, such as /r/jailbait on CNN or /r/creepshots on Gawker. They do not ban the users who posted such content, and do not take measures to prevent them from re-creating the same subreddit under a different name.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      As a point of order: the admins did not kill creepshots. People who didn't like it got the personal info of a mod and blackmailed him into shutting it down. Several clones of creepshots popped up and most of them got shut down pretty quick, so it looks like reddit has some kind of new rule but they haven't told the community what it is. I'm pretty sure there were jailbait-clones set up that got shut down, too.

tptacek 14y ago

You'd think maybe posting photos of minors without their consent might also have been a rule to prevent long-standing issues. But, no?

Goronmon 14y ago
You'd think maybe posting photos of minors without their consent might also have been a rule to prevent long-standing issues. But, no? What is the long-standing issue that you would be preventing though? It's creepy and wrong to be sure, but say banning a specific subreddit with that content, what is the result of that action? With doxxing you have documented cases of people being harassed based on people finding out their true identity. So banning doxxing helps to prevent situations where people are harassed outside of the site for the things they do on the site.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Interrogate the assertion that those photos are "creepy and wrong". Why are they creepy and wrong? I think you'll find the answer to your question in there.
  - Goronmon 14y ago
    Interrogate the assertion that those photos are "creepy and wrong". Why are they creepy and wrong? I think you'll find the answer to your question in there. Or you could just answer my question.
  - fosap 14y ago
    Thinks that you don't like are creepy. Browsing photos on facebook is creepy. Watching anime is creepy. Two males kissing or merely being gay is creepy. Why would anybody give a fuck if you think something is creepy?
    - tptacek 14y ago
      No, that's not my argument. The creepiness of these particular photos was his assertion, and I suggested that he interrogate his assertion about why they were creepy (and "wrong") to help see why these photos are in particular problematic. I was specifically not litigating the enforceability of "creepiness" standards. For what it's worth: Watching anime isn't creepy. Two males kissing isn't creepy.
      - fosap 14y ago
        Ah, ok, my bad. But. Watching anime and two males kissing is definitively creepy. Ask any high schooler.
        tptacek 14y ago
        I agree that this is a good illustration of why "creepiness" isn't a moral or practical standard.
- tzs 14y ago
  > With doxxing you have documented cases of people being harassed based on people finding out their true identity. So banning doxxing helps to prevent situations where people are harassed outside of the site for the things they do on the site. And banning posting candid sexually suggestive photos of kids helps to prevent the subjects of the photos from getting harassed at school when someone finds the photos online. I don't see why that should be any less important than trying to prevent harassment of people who take and post those photos. At least the person who gets harassed over posting the photos is getting harassed for something he actually deliberately did, whereas the kid might be getting harassed for accidentally showing some cleavage or some underwear. Or maybe it is ultimately the kid's fault for not dressing like a Saudi woman when in public.
xxpor 14y ago
I don't know what these pictures were like because I had never been on creepshots, but if they were taken in public, there isn't really anything (legally) wrong with them. People in public spaces can be photographed without their consent. That's a very clear rule, at least in the US. See: http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
- tptacek 14y ago
  The lawfulness of those photos has been disputed. But either way, posting the name, phone number, and employer of someone posting photos to Reddit is also not against the law.
- sentenza 14y ago
  So public humiliation in the form of an online-pillory is OK? Because that is exactly what this is. A platform for the public humiliation of women who walk in public. If we don't tolerate it for the guilty, why should we tolerate it for the innocent?
fosap 14y ago
No, i don't see why. It is a long standing rule that posting photos about Scientology without their consent is ok. I don't what sense this rule would would make. As long as nobody can google it (since no name) no one is hurt. So what?
- tptacek 14y ago
  I don't understand the equivalence between Scientologists and minors.
  - fosap 14y ago
    There is no difference. It's ok to posts photos without consent or it is not. Or tell me where you draw the line. /edit Or why the consent of a random 17 year old girl has more value that the consent of a random 20 year old guy working at a random CoS org.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      I am drawing the line at compromising (sexualized, objectified, or deliberately embarrassing) photos of minors. So again, I don't see the equivalence.
      - fosap 14y ago
        What is compromising? Photos of feet? Completely harmless to most people, for some better than tits. There is also a hair fetish. And probably there are a way more. Only post pictures of people wearing burkas?
        danielweber 14y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager (boy it's hard to post a URL with a ' in it)
        14y ago

jmillikin 14y ago

> You can't ban content just because it offends someone, > there wouldn't be much content left, if any. Is religion > distasteful? Violent images of war? Gay marriage? That's a slippery-slope argument, and it's ridiculous in this case. Reddit isn't being pressured to ban any and all offensive content; they're being pressured specifically about sexually-suggestive photographs of underage girls, created without consent. In fact, Reddit already has rules against this sort of content. From their user agreement: "You further agree not to use any sexually suggestive language or to provide to or post on or through the Website any graphics, text, photographs, images, video, audio or other material that is sexually suggestive or appeals to a prurient interest." So what the pressure is really about is Reddit ignoring their own rules to benefit one of their personal friends, and a small horde of terrible people defending this decision by pretending that teenage upskirts are free speech.

Goronmon 14y ago
That's a slippery-slope argument, and it's ridiculous in this case. Reddit isn't being pressured to ban any and all offensive content; they're being pressured specifically about sexually-suggestive photographs of underage girls, created without consent. Haven't they already decided not to allow the pictures of underage girls? I could be wrong, but I thought that had happened a while ago with the closing of /r/jailbait or some similar subreddit.
- jmillikin 14y ago
  > Haven't they already decided not to allow the pictures > of underage girls? I could be wrong, but I thought that > had happened a while ago with the closing of /r/jailbait > or some similar subreddit. They close particular subreddits when they become widely featured, such as /r/jailbait on CNN or /r/creepshots on Gawker. They do not ban the users who posted such content, and do not take measures to prevent them from re-creating the same subreddit under a different name.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    As a point of order: the admins did not kill creepshots. People who didn't like it got the personal info of a mod and blackmailed him into shutting it down. Several clones of creepshots popped up and most of them got shut down pretty quick, so it looks like reddit has some kind of new rule but they haven't told the community what it is. I'm pretty sure there were jailbait-clones set up that got shut down, too.