5 ms·

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

by 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.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      Some context would be useful here. The post was in relation to a URL exploit on a Sears site, and I can see the justification for a company taking issue with a partner of theirs posting how to exploit their site. This isn't just "Advertiser gets a post banned they don't like", this is "Advertiser asks partner to pull down an exploit". Framing it as the former makes it sound like a capricious, moralizing decision.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
- debacle 14y ago
  They have banned content which was nearly impossible to properly moderate and could have, from a legal perspective, become a very big problem.
  - fab13n 14y ago
    This was for legal matters, not for distastefulness. The same obligations fall on network operators, and wouldn't be cancelled by any net neutrality law.
    - debacle 14y ago
      Yes, we agree. I don't think anyone else would have looked at the facts and come to a different decision than what reddit did, and I'm sure they did not make the decision easily.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - sammythemc 14y ago
    Actually, this is untrue. The r/jailbait drama blew up when someone solicited underage pornography there, but at the end of the day it was banned for "threatening the structural integrity of reddit," ie the fallout from the Anderson Cooper story. Legality had little to do with it, just like you see with the ban on dox; it was banned for making the site look bad.
llimllib 14y ago
> Reddit is and should remain amoral You realize that this is impossible, right? Reddit cannot be amoral, it makes moral decisions all over the place. Why did they ban the jailbait subreddit? They made a moral decision to ban it. Why don't they allow doxing people? They made a moral decision to ban it. They make many other moral decisions in the breach; it's just easier to see their decisions when you look at what they don't allow rather than what they do. Simply hosting and allowing /r/creepshots to exist is a moral decision. Reddit provides them support, legitimacy, a platform, and server space by allowing them to use reddit. This is a moral decision. You don't get to provide material support for a site and at the same time say "we're not responsible for it". You are, to some extent, responsible, and to deny that is immoral.
- graue 14y ago
  Absolutely. And I think it’s worth noting that by allowing creepshots, but banning doxxing those who post creepshots, Reddit is expressing the moral preference that it’s okay to harass women and photograph them in compromising positions, but it’s not okay to call someone out on that. I find that position repugnant, and I’m sickened people keep talking about this situation as if it’s Michael Brutsch who’s the victim here. Adrian Chen on Twitter: “Why I felt OK outing Violentacrez: Anonymity should be valued mainly to the extent it helps protect powerless from powerful. VA wasn't that.” (https://twitter.com/AdrianChen/status/258703898695593984 https://twitter.com/AdrianChen/status/258703898695593984)
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    > "Reddit is expressing the moral preference that it’s okay to harass women and photograph them in compromising positions" Oh come on, that's bull. This is the exact same line of reasoning as "if you're not with us you're against us" - not being against something does not indicate that one is for something, or even condoning of something. Reddit's position against doxxing means Reddit is against doxxing - any further extrapolations are your own. Reddit's stance on doxxing may result in women being harassed and photographed in compromising situations, but that in no way means that, quote, "Reddit is expressing the moral preference that it’s okay to harass women and photograph them in compromising positions". That is a patent falsehood, and I find your entire post deeply offensive. This is the same exact argument right-wing politicians have used in the past to take us to war. By your logic, the burger you had for lunch last week expresses your moral preference for factory farming practices and the grave environment impact of meat consumption. Guilt by association much?
rada 14y ago
I keep seeing you and other Reddit apologists throwing the word "distasteful" around. Sorry but "distasteful" isn't going to whitewash Reddit and Redditors any better than "horseplay" did Jerry Sandusky. Stalking is not merely "distasteful": - But the girls don't know! - Bullshit. We know. Every time. - But we took these photos in public! - Bullshit. You took the photos from down below or up above. Taking upskirt photos of minors is not merely "distasteful": - But these girls are too sexy to be minors! - Bullshit. Did you ask for an ID? - But we took these photos in public! - Bullshit. Child porn is illegal everywhere. Hosting said upskirts is not merely "distasteful": - But we didn't know! - Bullshit. You knew, and you profited. - But we are protecting free speech! - Bullshit. Rape- and pedophile-adjacent porn is not free speech. Let's call a pig, a pig. We are talking about a forum whose sole purpose is to make and distribute pornographic photos of children and young women. By the way, an almost identical set of arguments happened around Amazon's defense of its sale of a book titled "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-lover's Code of Conduct". Amazon defended the book with the usual "if we stop selling it, Freedom Of Speech will die", and Amazon apologists made arguments very similar to yours. A few weeks later, they voluntarily took down Wikileaks because "It is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."

by fab13n 14y ago

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.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    Some context would be useful here. The post was in relation to a URL exploit on a Sears site, and I can see the justification for a company taking issue with a partner of theirs posting how to exploit their site. This isn't just "Advertiser gets a post banned they don't like", this is "Advertiser asks partner to pull down an exploit". Framing it as the former makes it sound like a capricious, moralizing decision.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
debacle 14y ago
They have banned content which was nearly impossible to properly moderate and could have, from a legal perspective, become a very big problem.
- fab13n 14y ago
  This was for legal matters, not for distastefulness. The same obligations fall on network operators, and wouldn't be cancelled by any net neutrality law.
  - debacle 14y ago
    Yes, we agree. I don't think anyone else would have looked at the facts and come to a different decision than what reddit did, and I'm sure they did not make the decision easily.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- sammythemc 14y ago
  Actually, this is untrue. The r/jailbait drama blew up when someone solicited underage pornography there, but at the end of the day it was banned for "threatening the structural integrity of reddit," ie the fallout from the Anderson Cooper story. Legality had little to do with it, just like you see with the ban on dox; it was banned for making the site look bad.

llimllib 14y ago

> Reddit is and should remain amoral You realize that this is impossible, right? Reddit cannot be amoral, it makes moral decisions all over the place. Why did they ban the jailbait subreddit? They made a moral decision to ban it. Why don't they allow doxing people? They made a moral decision to ban it. They make many other moral decisions in the breach; it's just easier to see their decisions when you look at what they don't allow rather than what they do. Simply hosting and allowing /r/creepshots to exist is a moral decision. Reddit provides them support, legitimacy, a platform, and server space by allowing them to use reddit. This is a moral decision. You don't get to provide material support for a site and at the same time say "we're not responsible for it". You are, to some extent, responsible, and to deny that is immoral.

graue 14y ago
Absolutely. And I think it’s worth noting that by allowing creepshots, but banning doxxing those who post creepshots, Reddit is expressing the moral preference that it’s okay to harass women and photograph them in compromising positions, but it’s not okay to call someone out on that. I find that position repugnant, and I’m sickened people keep talking about this situation as if it’s Michael Brutsch who’s the victim here. Adrian Chen on Twitter: “Why I felt OK outing Violentacrez: Anonymity should be valued mainly to the extent it helps protect powerless from powerful. VA wasn't that.” (https://twitter.com/AdrianChen/status/258703898695593984 https://twitter.com/AdrianChen/status/258703898695593984)
- potatolicious 14y ago
  > "Reddit is expressing the moral preference that it’s okay to harass women and photograph them in compromising positions" Oh come on, that's bull. This is the exact same line of reasoning as "if you're not with us you're against us" - not being against something does not indicate that one is for something, or even condoning of something. Reddit's position against doxxing means Reddit is against doxxing - any further extrapolations are your own. Reddit's stance on doxxing may result in women being harassed and photographed in compromising situations, but that in no way means that, quote, "Reddit is expressing the moral preference that it’s okay to harass women and photograph them in compromising positions". That is a patent falsehood, and I find your entire post deeply offensive. This is the same exact argument right-wing politicians have used in the past to take us to war. By your logic, the burger you had for lunch last week expresses your moral preference for factory farming practices and the grave environment impact of meat consumption. Guilt by association much?

rada 14y ago

I keep seeing you and other Reddit apologists throwing the word "distasteful" around. Sorry but "distasteful" isn't going to whitewash Reddit and Redditors any better than "horseplay" did Jerry Sandusky. Stalking is not merely "distasteful": - But the girls don't know! - Bullshit. We know. Every time. - But we took these photos in public! - Bullshit. You took the photos from down below or up above. Taking upskirt photos of minors is not merely "distasteful": - But these girls are too sexy to be minors! - Bullshit. Did you ask for an ID? - But we took these photos in public! - Bullshit. Child porn is illegal everywhere. Hosting said upskirts is not merely "distasteful": - But we didn't know! - Bullshit. You knew, and you profited. - But we are protecting free speech! - Bullshit. Rape- and pedophile-adjacent porn is not free speech. Let's call a pig, a pig. We are talking about a forum whose sole purpose is to make and distribute pornographic photos of children and young women. By the way, an almost identical set of arguments happened around Amazon's defense of its sale of a book titled "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-lover's Code of Conduct". Amazon defended the book with the usual "if we stop selling it, Freedom Of Speech will die", and Amazon apologists made arguments very similar to yours. A few weeks later, they voluntarily took down Wikileaks because "It is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."