11 ms·

Reddit's Moral Low Ground

99 points by raganwald 14y ago

bryanlarsen 14y ago
Why is this the story that's occupying the blogosphere's attention? While we're wrangling about this, the main stream media is talking about the doxxing of Amanda Todd's alleged bullier by Anonymous.
- raganwald 14y ago
  I can't speak about the Internet at large, but Reddit was a YC startup, and its growing pains are instructive for those who want to understand where their own startup dreams may lead, and the challenges of managing the unintended consequences of disrupting industries and/or society.
  - danso 14y ago
    This is exactly right and I'm glad to see the topic covered by someone who's held in high esteem at HN, as it seems all the other discussions on this topic have been downmodded. Many online startups today are basing part of their growth on user-submitted work/content. Reddit is one of the few that have reached a critical mass such that the system is worth gaming, and now Reddit has to reconsider its strategy. This has happened to, oh, only about every other online community/startup that has reached a commercially-valuable mass of users, including Digg, Facebook, Pinterest, Tumblr, Myspace, etc. etc.
  - bryanlarsen 14y ago
    In the Amanda Todd story, the "bad guys" are Youtube, Facebook & memegenerator. I guess the big difference is that the first two have gone through these sorts of things before -- there are some new aspects of this for Reddit. I think it would be interesting to compare the rules that Facebook uses to take down Pages vs the ones that are used to take down subreddits, but I don't think the Facebook rules are public. Facebook definitely took down some of the "good riddance Amanda Todd" pages, but I understand they are leaving some up that many find offensive.
  - maxerickson 14y ago
    I find it somewhat instructive that the reddit founders started a new business where they don't host user content and make revenue by getting their users off the site faster or with a higher level of satisfaction than competitors.
- drivingmenuts 14y ago
  The simplest reason is that there is an identifiable person here. Brutsch is now a known individual. Anonymous is still just a bunch of persons with no coherent membership, who may or may not be reachable. Until Anonymous goes after an alphabet agency again, there's really no point. Literally anyone could be in Anonymous, simply by claiming the name.
  - bryanlarsen 14y ago
    I don't understand. Kody Maxson & Amanda Todd are known individuals too. I just listened to a half hour episode on the CBC's The Current that was very well done and brought up a lot of good discussion points about the nature of hactivism, vigilante justice, doxxing, the role of the police, the role of advertisers, Facebook & Youtube in censoring hateful comments, et cetera.
surrealize 14y ago
Unlike Nike with its Armstrong advertising, Reddit exerts very little control over subreddits. That's by choice and by design. Reddit basically tries to keep itself from getting sued, and leaves the rest of the community rule-making to subreddit mods. Why is that so hard for people? People want to make reddit responsible for everything that happens there. But the users are the ones who are actually doing the posting. Let's recognize the truth: that those users are the relevant moral agents when it comes to their posts, not reddit. Reddit's not responsible for violentacrez' fate any more than it was responsible for his posts.
- raganwald 14y ago
  I open a nightclub. People drink. They fight. They hurt themselves. Do I get to shrug that I exert very little control over what people do in my nightclub? It's my choice whether I exert control or not. It's Reddit's choice not to exert control, and of course they're responsible for the consequences of their non-control. To my mind, they took the money. taking the money and then saying they're not responsible for his fate is not the moral high ground. It may be pragamatic, it may be just business, but it's hardly laudable.
  - tejaswiy 14y ago
    Should megaupload delete all the illegal content on their site? If one of the uploaders gets outed as someone from RIAA and looses their job, should they give them jobs too?
    - raldi 14y ago
      The author is taking as a given that VA was already discussing a job with reddit before the controversy. I don't know the scoop on that, but it's a key difference from your example.
  - beering 14y ago
    How much money did Reddit make off of VA's subreddits?
  - 14y ago
erode 14y ago
I'm a moderator of a couple subreddits, and I don't see a problem with how Reddit administrators reacted to the situation. Perhaps I am the minority but I believe that Reddit's hands-off approach is the only reason the community thrives.
- raganwald 14y ago
  I tried to be explicit in saying that I am not speaking to moderators about this. But Reddit has closed some of the subreddits, such as those that allegedly (I have never seen them) exploited underage persons. How about a cheque to charity for the approximate revenue they generated? It's a simple gesture.
  - pbreit 14y ago
    Can anyone confirm that more than a negligible sum was earned on such subreddits? Part of my problem with the post is the insinuation that reddit is a gross money hungry corporation when the reality seems quite different.
    - raganwald 14y ago
      A token cheque to charity would satisfy me. I'm available for a photo op with the CEO where he shakes my hand and presents Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children with a cheque in the amount of $53.28 for all of the jailbait and creepshots ad revenue. "We don't want the money, no matter how insignificant" would be a fine statement to make :-)
  - rz2k 14y ago
    The FCC has a policy whereby they absolutely refuse to approve content before it airs, even if networks explicitly ask. This is not a legal requirement, since the FCC levies fines for content that does not meet "community standards", it is deference to the fundamental principles of free speech whereby they would have a de facto pre-approval board. Both this post and the Gawker post bizarrely talk about free speech as though it is an excuse for bad behavior. Free speech is considered a social good in its own right. Furthermore, in the writings of the authors of the US Constitution, and in numerous Supreme Court decisions, they do not only talk about government being prohibited from silencing people, they talk about policies that are implicitly dangerous by virtue of cooling the public debate. Defending the principles of free speech is a difficult challenge when it comes to defending unpleasant and despicable groups. I don't find it credible or reasonable to claim that Reddit protected violentacres because it made them money, when it so clearly tarnishes their brand, and makes it more difficult for people to forward links, or otherwise talk about why they enjoy the site. The economics may be counter intuitive (much in the same way that Lance Armstrong hurts the Nike brand now as much as he may have ever benefited it), but Reddit is more responsive to the criticism of despised groups because of its commercial interests. Take a nonprofit, community access television channel like Manhattan Neighborhood Network—I swear that I saw a show on that channel that had to be entirely about some creeper who was filming women walking by his apartment window on the way to work. This post, and others, are based on the presumption that caring about the principles of free speech, and that recognizing that often ugly but lively debate is important to a dynamic society, is the same as wanting to see depraved and perverse content. Do they think the ACLU secretly sympathetic to neo-nazi causes, too? I find it especially troubling when it comes from journalists make the same presumption, and then clarify that they are implicitly more trustworthy (even if they've ever knocked on the door to someone's home with a camera crew) than someone misbehaving on a public site, or that that is even relevant, as though there are different classes of people when it comes to how much of a voice you are allowed.
parfe 14y ago
Reddit is a bastion of some fairly horrible groups. Blatant racism on auto joined communities, sexism as the default, exploitation of women as often as possible. /r/Jailbait was over the line of sexualising children. But /r/creepshots not being immediately banned by the admins frankly scared me. Reddit will host a community that encourages people to stalk women and photograph them for personal gratification.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- pfraze 14y ago
  I'm not sure you're bringing in the full picture. Reddit is a media community, not a media outlet. The parent company is a bastion of an authentic (however defined) self-policed system; to a limit, that includes the good and the bad. You might point fingers at the community, but you're talking about a lot of people, so you'll have to make inaccurate generalizations. I think Raganwald's points are well taken because they relate to the Reddit company's mission as a provider of free-speech, not as a provider of things you find distasteful.
- jmcqk6 14y ago
  I think it would go without saying on HN, but with all the focus on the negative at Reddit lately, the positive gets lost. Just like there is some horrible stuff on reddit, there is some really amazing places. /r/askscience comes to mind immediately. or /r/suicidewatch or /r/randomactsofpizza. A very long list of very good things are hosted on reddit, and I think it's important to keep that in mind. The presence of these things does not negate the horrible things. Like most things in life, the goodness or badness of something is more nuanced than a simple yes or no.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - king_jester 14y ago
    The issue isn't that communities can form on Reddit, but rather that the staff of Reddit welcome the creation of communities that actively perpetuate extremely harmful behavior. Ultimately the Reddit staff is free to run their site as they see fit, but the larger community of the Internet is rightly quite pissed about the fact that Reddit is supporting people who are actively violating others.
knowtheory 14y ago
Hey Reg. There are other options available to them. The major problem that I have with Reddit at the moment is the idea that somehow Adrien Chen's behavior was more egregious than Michael Brutsch. Brutsch is living by the sword and dying by the sword. Reddit has to at some point contend with the fact that being internet famous means that you are actually famous (or infamous as the case may be). There are consequences to fame and infamy, and Reddit can't claim that it does awesome things lifting people up, and collecting for charities, without acknowledging that anti-social behaviors will also have consequences. There is a place for anonymous free speech. And the more notoriety one gains, the harder it is to protect anonymity, and, justly i think, the harder it should be to make the case that one should remain anonymous. With great power comes great responsibility. (this comment may sound like a platitude coming at the end of what i've written. It's not, and if anyone wants to discuss it i'd be happy to furnish examples.)
- beering 14y ago
  I think you're conflating Reddit users/mods with Reddit staff. Raganwald's rant was clearly about Reddit staff, so talking about Reddit's users' behaviors distracts a bit.
  - knowtheory 14y ago
    Nope. Reddit staff has been decrying Gawker's doxxing just as much as the mods have. Reddit staff have also been intentionally hands off of controversial subreddits. Those are choices they have made, and they have defended their mods and the culture that they're fostering. I agree with Reg that Reddit is currently behaving inconsistently, but I don't entirely agree with Reg's two prescriptions to address the inconsistency.
    - arrrg 14y ago
      Is it possible to stop calling it 'doxxing'? It's revealing personal information in public that's the issue here. Sometimes that's justified, sometimes it's not.
calinet6 14y ago
This article is ludicrous. The protection of freedom of speech is fundamental, and one that Reddit is standing by. The usage of that freedom of speech is a personal responsibility. Reddit nor any other organization can be held responsible for the consequences of using that freedom of speech in ways that others may find objectionable or questionable. Reddit the organization is entirely in the right here. To say otherwise would be to misplace responsibility and fundamentally change the idea of free speech that the US—and surely the internet—has enjoyed for many years. The author of the article, however, sure thinks he's got some moral high groung alright. I implore him to get off his high horse.
- raganwald 14y ago
  I think that both of our horses share the same sire. Reddit nor any other organization can be held responsible for the consequences of using that freedom of speech in ways that others may find objectionable or questionable. A reasonable position. Let me grant you that. So here's an oblique question, one that does not argue with your perfectly understandable feelings about Freedom of Speech. What's with this man being fired from his job for exercising his Freedom of Speech during his own personal time? Obviously there's freedom of people to boycott his employer if they don't like them employing him, and his employer has freedom to fire him if they don't want to deal with any such consequences, but all that being said... Isn't there something deeply disturbing about people holding his employer responsible for his freedom to speak when it's wholly unconnected with their business, but not holding Reddit accountable for his freedom to speak, when it's their business to allow him to speak? Why aren't these two things the same?
  - cousin_it 14y ago
    It seems to me that dissenters in the internet age will ultimately need a new, expanded "freedom of speech". I hold quite a few controversial opinions, and in the last year or two I increasingly feel unsafe when expressing them on the internet. I do not fear governments, but I do fear witch hunts, and I fear automatic indexing/flagging of my speech by corporations. The recent doxxing scandals are not helping my peace of mind, and neither do the firings of people who get "exposed". The original version of "freedom of speech" only said that the government should not persecute people for speech. That was certainly a great idea, when the government was the only entity that could realistically persecute you. Today we additionally have huge corporations and online hiveminds that can and will punish you for what you say. Other "human rights" that have sprung up in the last century acknowledge the new reality, e.g. people get protected from discrimination by private companies, not just by the government. Freedom of speech is lagging behind: a company cannot fire you for being black, but can fire you for your online conversations outside of work.
comex 14y ago
Me, I support freedom of speech and decentralization. But one thing strikes me as odd: I keep hearing about this case on HN and other tech news sites, but I have yet to see an article about it on Reddit's own front page. I'm sure I missed discussion when the original article was published, but does Reddit not care about all these followup reports/opinions or is my homepage setting just weird?
- awakeasleep 14y ago
  Reddit globally banned links to the article, and may subreddits blocked all links to Gawker. The global ban has been lifted, but many of the moderators of the most popular subreddits consider Violentacrez a mentor/friend, and the individual blocks remain in effect. In the end it doesn't matter because during the crucial window of relevance the article was blocked.
imgabe 14y ago
> They’re talking about freedom of speech, but the message I read is that they’ll take the money if you want to use Reddit to say something controversial. But if there are consequences... You’re on your own. Of course you're on your own. Reddit shouldn't be held responsible for what people say on it anymore than AT&T should be held responsible for what people say on the phone.
- raganwald 14y ago
  I know where your're going with this, but the phone is not a good analogy because AT&T's revenue is not commensurate with the popularity of what you say, and a phone call is private. Consider instead a satellite radio station that lets you host your own talk show and sells advertising on it without giving you a cut.
  - cfinke 14y ago
    a phone call is private Tell that to the government.
fab13n 14y ago
No. Reddit is about reflecting their audience's taste or lack thereof, not condoning nor condemning it. Reddit works precisely because they maintain some sort of "net neutrality" ethics, refusing any editorial meddling. Banning a distasteful content provider would break that neutrality; but hiring him would break it just as much. If there's a will, among Reddit's users, to help Brutsch find a new job, he'll get it. And I'd bet it will happen, if only because some companies would value the PR outcome of such a move. But that's for the community to decide, not for the infrastructure guys at Reddit inc. Reddit has neither a high nor a low moral ground on this; Reddit is and should remain amoral. That's where the Nike comparison completely falls apart.
- chez17 14y ago
  >Reddit works precisely because they maintain some sort of "net neutrality" ethics, refusing any editorial meddling. Banning a distasteful content provider would break that neutrality; but hiring him would break it just as much. This is incorrect. They have banned 'distasteful content' and they have banned posts due to pressure from advertisers. Reddit is behaving extremely hypocritical and their PR on this subject is just nonsense. People shouldn't post on subjects on which they don't even have a basic understanding. I don't mean to sound rude, but this post is getting the most votes as of this writing and it's just flat out wrong.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    >they have banned posts due to pressure from advertisers Citation please.
    - lambda 14y ago
      http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/9clji/where_did_my_post_about_searscoms_urlhackable/c0c95xr http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/9clji/where_did_m... I should add that this is not direct pressure from their advertisers, but from their parent company, Condé Nast. I'm sure that Sears is and advertiser for at least some Condé Nast properties, so it's effectively the same, though with an extra level of indirection.
debacle 14y ago
This seems like outrage looking for a victim. Nike is a huge multinational business. I find the comparison to reddit silly. Reddit, in its entire history, has erred on the side of free speech. That is noble, rational, and respectable. Reddit preserved /r/jailbait for as long as possible because it was not illegal. Reddit is trying to be a platform and a vehicle for discussion, not a content moderator, and in that regard it's doing a good job.
andrewvc 14y ago
Raganwald, I normally like what you write, but bringing up Lance is nonsensical. Everyone knows that cycling's been big on doping for years. It can hardly even be called cheating, it's tacitly acknowledged that everyone's on drugs. It's been well established that all of Lance's competitors were doping as well. When your choices are take drugs, or don't compete, is it really cheating? The real problem in cycling is the moral outrage around doping. Doping isn't cheating, it's the way the game is played. If you want to compete, that's the price of admission. Nike's a giant publicly traded corporation with an obligation to their shareholders. Their main product is their brand (which is used to sell goods). They did what they needed to do to protect their brand. As far as pretending that they didn't know about Lance, I consider that a white lie. Everyone has known that Lance doped for years. Nike feigning ignorance is a fiction needed to prevent retaliation from moralists with their heads in the sand, a constituency that sadly cannot be ignored.
- gammarator 14y ago
  Doping in cycling is cheating. Not everyone does (or did) it--see Christophe Bassons [1] as the canonical example--and in any case the most sophisticated doping regimens were only available to a few of the best-financed riders and teams. Hardly a level playing field [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe_Bassons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe_Bassons [2] http://inrng.com/2012/10/level-playing-field-doping-myth/ http://inrng.com/2012/10/level-playing-field-doping-myth/
  - andrewvc 14y ago
    Both valid points. It's sad that someone like Bassons is at a disadvantage. You're right doping doesn't level the playing field. However, for better or worse it's part of the playing field. Of course, nothing about pro sports is ever fair. Money matters even taking drugs out of the equation. It buys you better bikes, trainers, doctors, training facilities, etc. As far as some people responding better to drugs, well sports are pretty heavily defined by our bodies. Responding well to drugs is analogous to responding well to training, it's an asset for an athlete to have in today's world.
- 14y ago
rmc 14y ago
Reddit (& supporters) like to point out how Reddit supports free speech etc. However reddit doesn't allow some speech that would be legal in USA, namely publishing personal details of reddit users (doxxing). They have already drawn a line and said "This is legal, but we don't want it here". What about Gawker's free speech? When people post creepshots (photos of people without their knowledge), we hear that "We can't ban them, because of free speech". When people post personal details of people who take creepshots, suddenly free speech doesn't apply anymore, and it's all about potential personal harm. What about potential personal harm with creepshots?
- Karunamon 14y ago
  >What about potential personal harm with creepshots? And what might that be? An upskirt picture absent any other context (a face, a name, a location, a timestamp) might as well be anonymous. I understand that the subject of that image might be rightly scandalized were they to find out, but if they don't? Is someone really harmed by someone else getting off to an image of their body absent their knowledge of this?
  - JoeAltmaier 14y ago
    Sure they are. They know its happening. They know its supported by the hosting organization. Imagine we institutionalized it- we'll take pictures of random people, including maybe you, in the bathroom in as embarassing a way as possible, and distribute it only to people you don't know. Ha ha! What a riot! They get a good laugh at your expense, you know its happening but cant do anything about it. Feel safe and confident now? Its morally reprehensible to violate someones privacy in this way. We all suffer when its enabled by anyone.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      >Imagine we institutionalized it- But we aren't, so this entire hypothetical is out on its arse. Let's deal with the reality instead of a reduction to the absurd. >They know its happening. They know its supported by the hosting organization. How? Honest curious question, how many people know these pictures have been taken and are up on some random internet site?
lambda 14y ago
What? Freedom of speech does not mean "I have to pay you for the kind of speech you create." There is no hypocrisy in saying "I don't support what you are saying, but I defend your right to say it." Now, sure the money they made clouds matters a bit, but that money was content-neutral. They neither encouraged nor discouraged any particular content.
mikeash 14y ago
I don't understand this article. Reddit doesn't like some of the stuff that takes place on their site, but overall they value the community's choices over their own likes or dislikes. There's nothing wrong with expressing your own opinion on these things but refusing to act on those opinions out of higher principles. In fact, I'd say that's rather ideal. I flagged this article because IMO something this dumb doesn't belong on the front page.
niggler 14y ago
The overarching point is lost here: there is no anonymity on the Internet and you should treat each missive as if it is associated with your person.
paul 14y ago
Some people just don't understand the meaning of freedom. This post reminds me of religious types who demand that YouTube take down videos that they deem offensive.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
shmageggy 14y ago
The characterization of Reddit as "trying to speak out of both sides of its mouth" is misplaced. There is nothing inconsistent about affirming someone's right to say something while acknowledging that the content of said speech is deplorable. In the US (and Reddit is US company), we have a long and extolled history of this exact behavior. Was the ACLU being inconsistent when they defended the rights of Nazis to demonstrate in Skokie, Illinois [1]? Others here have rightly pointed out that Reddit is not government, and that they aren't obliged to allow all legal speech. However, in an age of increasing acceptance of voluntary censorship (walled gardens, etc) Reddit has chosen to take the principled position of allowing its users to self moderate its content, only intervening in cases of illegality. If one thinks that creepshots-style content shouldn't be allowed (and there are certainly compelling arguments for this case), one should petition the government to classify it as illegal, not wrongly criticize Reddit for taking the consistent position that they have. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#The_Skokie_case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#...
- indiecore 14y ago
  >There is nothing inconsistent about affirming someone's right to say something while acknowledging that the content of said speech is deplorable. Sorry, the SJ guardians live in a black and white world where you are with them or against them and being against creepshots AND against doxxing is completely impossible.
  - makomk 14y ago
    Pretty much: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/18/online-bullying-ugly-sport-liberal-commenters http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/18/online-b... (That article if anything understates how bad the problem is.)
venus 14y ago
Both of the "moral high ground" actions the author suggests Reddit make are in fact punishments, presumably for the crime of allowing "despicable filth" to be "peddled" on their site. Reddit doing neither is actually quite rational. Although the author obviously does not find this morally satisfying, I am firmly on Reddit's side here. I really appreciate how hands-off they are. I find this Adrian Chen figure, however, to be of bad character. I don't particularly like Mr Brutsch, but I like moral-hysteria witch hunts even less. Talk about misusing your privileged position in the media to play judge, jury and executioner to some misguided schmuck. Hope he gets signed up to a few dozen more of those mailing lists.
peterchon 14y ago
Couldn't have said it better myself.
gfunk911 14y ago
Raganwald: Even now, they speak out of both sides of their mouth, mumbling about free speech while disavowing approval of the choices this man made to make them money. Voltaire (maybe): I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Millennium 14y ago
Communities will be policed, one way or another. If an authority (like Reddit's administration) refuses to do it, then the community will do so itself, and likely in ways the authority, and perhaps even some community members, would rather not happen. This means the Reddit folks have a choice to make: they can police the userbase, or they can allow the community to do so, or they can ban one community policing measure after another until the community itself is no longer useful. The first and second options have been successfully implemented, to varying degrees and sometimes with a measure of hybridization, in many communities. By refusing to punish miscreants but punishing those who would punish said miscreants, Reddit is currently on the third path, and that's not a practical place to be.

99 points by raganwald 14y ago

Why is this the story that's occupying the blogosphere's attention? While we're wrangling about this, the main stream media is talking about the doxxing of Amanda Todd's alleged bullier by Anonymous.

raganwald 14y ago
I can't speak about the Internet at large, but Reddit was a YC startup, and its growing pains are instructive for those who want to understand where their own startup dreams may lead, and the challenges of managing the unintended consequences of disrupting industries and/or society.
- danso 14y ago
  This is exactly right and I'm glad to see the topic covered by someone who's held in high esteem at HN, as it seems all the other discussions on this topic have been downmodded. Many online startups today are basing part of their growth on user-submitted work/content. Reddit is one of the few that have reached a critical mass such that the system is worth gaming, and now Reddit has to reconsider its strategy. This has happened to, oh, only about every other online community/startup that has reached a commercially-valuable mass of users, including Digg, Facebook, Pinterest, Tumblr, Myspace, etc. etc.
- bryanlarsen 14y ago
  In the Amanda Todd story, the "bad guys" are Youtube, Facebook & memegenerator. I guess the big difference is that the first two have gone through these sorts of things before -- there are some new aspects of this for Reddit. I think it would be interesting to compare the rules that Facebook uses to take down Pages vs the ones that are used to take down subreddits, but I don't think the Facebook rules are public. Facebook definitely took down some of the "good riddance Amanda Todd" pages, but I understand they are leaving some up that many find offensive.
- maxerickson 14y ago
  I find it somewhat instructive that the reddit founders started a new business where they don't host user content and make revenue by getting their users off the site faster or with a higher level of satisfaction than competitors.
drivingmenuts 14y ago
The simplest reason is that there is an identifiable person here. Brutsch is now a known individual. Anonymous is still just a bunch of persons with no coherent membership, who may or may not be reachable. Until Anonymous goes after an alphabet agency again, there's really no point. Literally anyone could be in Anonymous, simply by claiming the name.
- bryanlarsen 14y ago
  I don't understand. Kody Maxson & Amanda Todd are known individuals too. I just listened to a half hour episode on the CBC's The Current that was very well done and brought up a lot of good discussion points about the nature of hactivism, vigilante justice, doxxing, the role of the police, the role of advertisers, Facebook & Youtube in censoring hateful comments, et cetera.

surrealize 14y ago

Unlike Nike with its Armstrong advertising, Reddit exerts very little control over subreddits. That's by choice and by design. Reddit basically tries to keep itself from getting sued, and leaves the rest of the community rule-making to subreddit mods. Why is that so hard for people? People want to make reddit responsible for everything that happens there. But the users are the ones who are actually doing the posting. Let's recognize the truth: that those users are the relevant moral agents when it comes to their posts, not reddit. Reddit's not responsible for violentacrez' fate any more than it was responsible for his posts.

raganwald 14y ago
I open a nightclub. People drink. They fight. They hurt themselves. Do I get to shrug that I exert very little control over what people do in my nightclub? It's my choice whether I exert control or not. It's Reddit's choice not to exert control, and of course they're responsible for the consequences of their non-control. To my mind, they took the money. taking the money and then saying they're not responsible for his fate is not the moral high ground. It may be pragamatic, it may be just business, but it's hardly laudable.
- tejaswiy 14y ago
  Should megaupload delete all the illegal content on their site? If one of the uploaders gets outed as someone from RIAA and looses their job, should they give them jobs too?
  - raldi 14y ago
    The author is taking as a given that VA was already discussing a job with reddit before the controversy. I don't know the scoop on that, but it's a key difference from your example.
- beering 14y ago
  How much money did Reddit make off of VA's subreddits?
- 14y ago

erode 14y ago

I'm a moderator of a couple subreddits, and I don't see a problem with how Reddit administrators reacted to the situation. Perhaps I am the minority but I believe that Reddit's hands-off approach is the only reason the community thrives.

raganwald 14y ago
I tried to be explicit in saying that I am not speaking to moderators about this. But Reddit has closed some of the subreddits, such as those that allegedly (I have never seen them) exploited underage persons. How about a cheque to charity for the approximate revenue they generated? It's a simple gesture.
- pbreit 14y ago
  Can anyone confirm that more than a negligible sum was earned on such subreddits? Part of my problem with the post is the insinuation that reddit is a gross money hungry corporation when the reality seems quite different.
  - raganwald 14y ago
    A token cheque to charity would satisfy me. I'm available for a photo op with the CEO where he shakes my hand and presents Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children with a cheque in the amount of $53.28 for all of the jailbait and creepshots ad revenue. "We don't want the money, no matter how insignificant" would be a fine statement to make :-)
- rz2k 14y ago
  The FCC has a policy whereby they absolutely refuse to approve content before it airs, even if networks explicitly ask. This is not a legal requirement, since the FCC levies fines for content that does not meet "community standards", it is deference to the fundamental principles of free speech whereby they would have a de facto pre-approval board. Both this post and the Gawker post bizarrely talk about free speech as though it is an excuse for bad behavior. Free speech is considered a social good in its own right. Furthermore, in the writings of the authors of the US Constitution, and in numerous Supreme Court decisions, they do not only talk about government being prohibited from silencing people, they talk about policies that are implicitly dangerous by virtue of cooling the public debate. Defending the principles of free speech is a difficult challenge when it comes to defending unpleasant and despicable groups. I don't find it credible or reasonable to claim that Reddit protected violentacres because it made them money, when it so clearly tarnishes their brand, and makes it more difficult for people to forward links, or otherwise talk about why they enjoy the site. The economics may be counter intuitive (much in the same way that Lance Armstrong hurts the Nike brand now as much as he may have ever benefited it), but Reddit is more responsive to the criticism of despised groups because of its commercial interests. Take a nonprofit, community access television channel like Manhattan Neighborhood Network—I swear that I saw a show on that channel that had to be entirely about some creeper who was filming women walking by his apartment window on the way to work. This post, and others, are based on the presumption that caring about the principles of free speech, and that recognizing that often ugly but lively debate is important to a dynamic society, is the same as wanting to see depraved and perverse content. Do they think the ACLU secretly sympathetic to neo-nazi causes, too? I find it especially troubling when it comes from journalists make the same presumption, and then clarify that they are implicitly more trustworthy (even if they've ever knocked on the door to someone's home with a camera crew) than someone misbehaving on a public site, or that that is even relevant, as though there are different classes of people when it comes to how much of a voice you are allowed.

parfe 14y ago

Reddit is a bastion of some fairly horrible groups. Blatant racism on auto joined communities, sexism as the default, exploitation of women as often as possible. /r/Jailbait was over the line of sexualising children. But /r/creepshots not being immediately banned by the admins frankly scared me. Reddit will host a community that encourages people to stalk women and photograph them for personal gratification.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
pfraze 14y ago
I'm not sure you're bringing in the full picture. Reddit is a media community, not a media outlet. The parent company is a bastion of an authentic (however defined) self-policed system; to a limit, that includes the good and the bad. You might point fingers at the community, but you're talking about a lot of people, so you'll have to make inaccurate generalizations. I think Raganwald's points are well taken because they relate to the Reddit company's mission as a provider of free-speech, not as a provider of things you find distasteful.
jmcqk6 14y ago
I think it would go without saying on HN, but with all the focus on the negative at Reddit lately, the positive gets lost. Just like there is some horrible stuff on reddit, there is some really amazing places. /r/askscience comes to mind immediately. or /r/suicidewatch or /r/randomactsofpizza. A very long list of very good things are hosted on reddit, and I think it's important to keep that in mind. The presence of these things does not negate the horrible things. Like most things in life, the goodness or badness of something is more nuanced than a simple yes or no.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- king_jester 14y ago
  The issue isn't that communities can form on Reddit, but rather that the staff of Reddit welcome the creation of communities that actively perpetuate extremely harmful behavior. Ultimately the Reddit staff is free to run their site as they see fit, but the larger community of the Internet is rightly quite pissed about the fact that Reddit is supporting people who are actively violating others.

knowtheory 14y ago

Hey Reg. There are other options available to them. The major problem that I have with Reddit at the moment is the idea that somehow Adrien Chen's behavior was more egregious than Michael Brutsch. Brutsch is living by the sword and dying by the sword. Reddit has to at some point contend with the fact that being internet famous means that you are actually famous (or infamous as the case may be). There are consequences to fame and infamy, and Reddit can't claim that it does awesome things lifting people up, and collecting for charities, without acknowledging that anti-social behaviors will also have consequences. There is a place for anonymous free speech. And the more notoriety one gains, the harder it is to protect anonymity, and, justly i think, the harder it should be to make the case that one should remain anonymous. With great power comes great responsibility. (this comment may sound like a platitude coming at the end of what i've written. It's not, and if anyone wants to discuss it i'd be happy to furnish examples.)

beering 14y ago
I think you're conflating Reddit users/mods with Reddit staff. Raganwald's rant was clearly about Reddit staff, so talking about Reddit's users' behaviors distracts a bit.
- knowtheory 14y ago
  Nope. Reddit staff has been decrying Gawker's doxxing just as much as the mods have. Reddit staff have also been intentionally hands off of controversial subreddits. Those are choices they have made, and they have defended their mods and the culture that they're fostering. I agree with Reg that Reddit is currently behaving inconsistently, but I don't entirely agree with Reg's two prescriptions to address the inconsistency.
  - arrrg 14y ago
    Is it possible to stop calling it 'doxxing'? It's revealing personal information in public that's the issue here. Sometimes that's justified, sometimes it's not.

calinet6 14y ago

This article is ludicrous. The protection of freedom of speech is fundamental, and one that Reddit is standing by. The usage of that freedom of speech is a personal responsibility. Reddit nor any other organization can be held responsible for the consequences of using that freedom of speech in ways that others may find objectionable or questionable. Reddit the organization is entirely in the right here. To say otherwise would be to misplace responsibility and fundamentally change the idea of free speech that the US—and surely the internet—has enjoyed for many years. The author of the article, however, sure thinks he's got some moral high groung alright. I implore him to get off his high horse.

raganwald 14y ago
I think that both of our horses share the same sire. Reddit nor any other organization can be held responsible for the consequences of using that freedom of speech in ways that others may find objectionable or questionable. A reasonable position. Let me grant you that. So here's an oblique question, one that does not argue with your perfectly understandable feelings about Freedom of Speech. What's with this man being fired from his job for exercising his Freedom of Speech during his own personal time? Obviously there's freedom of people to boycott his employer if they don't like them employing him, and his employer has freedom to fire him if they don't want to deal with any such consequences, but all that being said... Isn't there something deeply disturbing about people holding his employer responsible for his freedom to speak when it's wholly unconnected with their business, but not holding Reddit accountable for his freedom to speak, when it's their business to allow him to speak? Why aren't these two things the same?
- cousin_it 14y ago
  It seems to me that dissenters in the internet age will ultimately need a new, expanded "freedom of speech". I hold quite a few controversial opinions, and in the last year or two I increasingly feel unsafe when expressing them on the internet. I do not fear governments, but I do fear witch hunts, and I fear automatic indexing/flagging of my speech by corporations. The recent doxxing scandals are not helping my peace of mind, and neither do the firings of people who get "exposed". The original version of "freedom of speech" only said that the government should not persecute people for speech. That was certainly a great idea, when the government was the only entity that could realistically persecute you. Today we additionally have huge corporations and online hiveminds that can and will punish you for what you say. Other "human rights" that have sprung up in the last century acknowledge the new reality, e.g. people get protected from discrimination by private companies, not just by the government. Freedom of speech is lagging behind: a company cannot fire you for being black, but can fire you for your online conversations outside of work.

comex 14y ago

Me, I support freedom of speech and decentralization. But one thing strikes me as odd: I keep hearing about this case on HN and other tech news sites, but I have yet to see an article about it on Reddit's own front page. I'm sure I missed discussion when the original article was published, but does Reddit not care about all these followup reports/opinions or is my homepage setting just weird?

awakeasleep 14y ago
Reddit globally banned links to the article, and may subreddits blocked all links to Gawker. The global ban has been lifted, but many of the moderators of the most popular subreddits consider Violentacrez a mentor/friend, and the individual blocks remain in effect. In the end it doesn't matter because during the crucial window of relevance the article was blocked.

imgabe 14y ago

> They’re talking about freedom of speech, but the message I read is that they’ll take the money if you want to use Reddit to say something controversial. But if there are consequences... You’re on your own. Of course you're on your own. Reddit shouldn't be held responsible for what people say on it anymore than AT&T should be held responsible for what people say on the phone.

raganwald 14y ago
I know where your're going with this, but the phone is not a good analogy because AT&T's revenue is not commensurate with the popularity of what you say, and a phone call is private. Consider instead a satellite radio station that lets you host your own talk show and sells advertising on it without giving you a cut.
- cfinke 14y ago
  a phone call is private Tell that to the government.

fab13n 14y ago

No. Reddit is about reflecting their audience's taste or lack thereof, not condoning nor condemning it. Reddit works precisely because they maintain some sort of "net neutrality" ethics, refusing any editorial meddling. Banning a distasteful content provider would break that neutrality; but hiring him would break it just as much. If there's a will, among Reddit's users, to help Brutsch find a new job, he'll get it. And I'd bet it will happen, if only because some companies would value the PR outcome of such a move. But that's for the community to decide, not for the infrastructure guys at Reddit inc. Reddit has neither a high nor a low moral ground on this; Reddit is and should remain amoral. That's where the Nike comparison completely falls apart.

chez17 14y ago
>Reddit works precisely because they maintain some sort of "net neutrality" ethics, refusing any editorial meddling. Banning a distasteful content provider would break that neutrality; but hiring him would break it just as much. This is incorrect. They have banned 'distasteful content' and they have banned posts due to pressure from advertisers. Reddit is behaving extremely hypocritical and their PR on this subject is just nonsense. People shouldn't post on subjects on which they don't even have a basic understanding. I don't mean to sound rude, but this post is getting the most votes as of this writing and it's just flat out wrong.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  >they have banned posts due to pressure from advertisers Citation please.
  - lambda 14y ago
    http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/9clji/where_did_my_post_about_searscoms_urlhackable/c0c95xr http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/9clji/where_did_m... I should add that this is not direct pressure from their advertisers, but from their parent company, Condé Nast. I'm sure that Sears is and advertiser for at least some Condé Nast properties, so it's effectively the same, though with an extra level of indirection.

debacle 14y ago

This seems like outrage looking for a victim. Nike is a huge multinational business. I find the comparison to reddit silly. Reddit, in its entire history, has erred on the side of free speech. That is noble, rational, and respectable. Reddit preserved /r/jailbait for as long as possible because it was not illegal. Reddit is trying to be a platform and a vehicle for discussion, not a content moderator, and in that regard it's doing a good job.

andrewvc 14y ago

Raganwald, I normally like what you write, but bringing up Lance is nonsensical. Everyone knows that cycling's been big on doping for years. It can hardly even be called cheating, it's tacitly acknowledged that everyone's on drugs. It's been well established that all of Lance's competitors were doping as well. When your choices are take drugs, or don't compete, is it really cheating? The real problem in cycling is the moral outrage around doping. Doping isn't cheating, it's the way the game is played. If you want to compete, that's the price of admission. Nike's a giant publicly traded corporation with an obligation to their shareholders. Their main product is their brand (which is used to sell goods). They did what they needed to do to protect their brand. As far as pretending that they didn't know about Lance, I consider that a white lie. Everyone has known that Lance doped for years. Nike feigning ignorance is a fiction needed to prevent retaliation from moralists with their heads in the sand, a constituency that sadly cannot be ignored.

gammarator 14y ago
Doping in cycling is cheating. Not everyone does (or did) it--see Christophe Bassons [1] as the canonical example--and in any case the most sophisticated doping regimens were only available to a few of the best-financed riders and teams. Hardly a level playing field [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe_Bassons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe_Bassons [2] http://inrng.com/2012/10/level-playing-field-doping-myth/ http://inrng.com/2012/10/level-playing-field-doping-myth/
- andrewvc 14y ago
  Both valid points. It's sad that someone like Bassons is at a disadvantage. You're right doping doesn't level the playing field. However, for better or worse it's part of the playing field. Of course, nothing about pro sports is ever fair. Money matters even taking drugs out of the equation. It buys you better bikes, trainers, doctors, training facilities, etc. As far as some people responding better to drugs, well sports are pretty heavily defined by our bodies. Responding well to drugs is analogous to responding well to training, it's an asset for an athlete to have in today's world.
14y ago

rmc 14y ago

Reddit (& supporters) like to point out how Reddit supports free speech etc. However reddit doesn't allow some speech that would be legal in USA, namely publishing personal details of reddit users (doxxing). They have already drawn a line and said "This is legal, but we don't want it here". What about Gawker's free speech? When people post creepshots (photos of people without their knowledge), we hear that "We can't ban them, because of free speech". When people post personal details of people who take creepshots, suddenly free speech doesn't apply anymore, and it's all about potential personal harm. What about potential personal harm with creepshots?

Karunamon 14y ago
>What about potential personal harm with creepshots? And what might that be? An upskirt picture absent any other context (a face, a name, a location, a timestamp) might as well be anonymous. I understand that the subject of that image might be rightly scandalized were they to find out, but if they don't? Is someone really harmed by someone else getting off to an image of their body absent their knowledge of this?
- JoeAltmaier 14y ago
  Sure they are. They know its happening. They know its supported by the hosting organization. Imagine we institutionalized it- we'll take pictures of random people, including maybe you, in the bathroom in as embarassing a way as possible, and distribute it only to people you don't know. Ha ha! What a riot! They get a good laugh at your expense, you know its happening but cant do anything about it. Feel safe and confident now? Its morally reprehensible to violate someones privacy in this way. We all suffer when its enabled by anyone.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    >Imagine we institutionalized it- But we aren't, so this entire hypothetical is out on its arse. Let's deal with the reality instead of a reduction to the absurd. >They know its happening. They know its supported by the hosting organization. How? Honest curious question, how many people know these pictures have been taken and are up on some random internet site?

lambda 14y ago

What? Freedom of speech does not mean "I have to pay you for the kind of speech you create." There is no hypocrisy in saying "I don't support what you are saying, but I defend your right to say it." Now, sure the money they made clouds matters a bit, but that money was content-neutral. They neither encouraged nor discouraged any particular content.

mikeash 14y ago

I don't understand this article. Reddit doesn't like some of the stuff that takes place on their site, but overall they value the community's choices over their own likes or dislikes. There's nothing wrong with expressing your own opinion on these things but refusing to act on those opinions out of higher principles. In fact, I'd say that's rather ideal. I flagged this article because IMO something this dumb doesn't belong on the front page.

niggler 14y ago

The overarching point is lost here: there is no anonymity on the Internet and you should treat each missive as if it is associated with your person.

paul 14y ago

Some people just don't understand the meaning of freedom. This post reminds me of religious types who demand that YouTube take down videos that they deem offensive.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

shmageggy 14y ago

The characterization of Reddit as "trying to speak out of both sides of its mouth" is misplaced. There is nothing inconsistent about affirming someone's right to say something while acknowledging that the content of said speech is deplorable. In the US (and Reddit is US company), we have a long and extolled history of this exact behavior. Was the ACLU being inconsistent when they defended the rights of Nazis to demonstrate in Skokie, Illinois [1]? Others here have rightly pointed out that Reddit is not government, and that they aren't obliged to allow all legal speech. However, in an age of increasing acceptance of voluntary censorship (walled gardens, etc) Reddit has chosen to take the principled position of allowing its users to self moderate its content, only intervening in cases of illegality. If one thinks that creepshots-style content shouldn't be allowed (and there are certainly compelling arguments for this case), one should petition the government to classify it as illegal, not wrongly criticize Reddit for taking the consistent position that they have. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#The_Skokie_case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#...

indiecore 14y ago
>There is nothing inconsistent about affirming someone's right to say something while acknowledging that the content of said speech is deplorable. Sorry, the SJ guardians live in a black and white world where you are with them or against them and being against creepshots AND against doxxing is completely impossible.
- makomk 14y ago
  Pretty much: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/18/online-bullying-ugly-sport-liberal-commenters http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/18/online-b... (That article if anything understates how bad the problem is.)

venus 14y ago

Both of the "moral high ground" actions the author suggests Reddit make are in fact punishments, presumably for the crime of allowing "despicable filth" to be "peddled" on their site. Reddit doing neither is actually quite rational. Although the author obviously does not find this morally satisfying, I am firmly on Reddit's side here. I really appreciate how hands-off they are. I find this Adrian Chen figure, however, to be of bad character. I don't particularly like Mr Brutsch, but I like moral-hysteria witch hunts even less. Talk about misusing your privileged position in the media to play judge, jury and executioner to some misguided schmuck. Hope he gets signed up to a few dozen more of those mailing lists.

peterchon 14y ago

Couldn't have said it better myself.

gfunk911 14y ago

Raganwald: Even now, they speak out of both sides of their mouth, mumbling about free speech while disavowing approval of the choices this man made to make them money. Voltaire (maybe): I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Millennium 14y ago

Communities will be policed, one way or another. If an authority (like Reddit's administration) refuses to do it, then the community will do so itself, and likely in ways the authority, and perhaps even some community members, would rather not happen. This means the Reddit folks have a choice to make: they can police the userbase, or they can allow the community to do so, or they can ban one community policing measure after another until the community itself is no longer useful. The first and second options have been successfully implemented, to varying degrees and sometimes with a measure of hybridization, in many communities. By refusing to punish miscreants but punishing those who would punish said miscreants, Reddit is currently on the third path, and that's not a practical place to be.