11 ms·

>willingly allows to exist subreddits devoted towards domestic abuse and snuff Serious question: why does this even bother you?

by verroq 12y ago

jmduke 12y ago
That's a completely valid question, and the answer isn't something concrete. I think on one hand it's just overall indicative of the site's priorities (and again, I completely acknowledge that it's those same priorities which also helped foster the subreddits that I love) -- on the other hand, I think it's just the sense of heebie-jeebies, like being a pro bono lawyer for the mob or something -- as though my presence there is somehow contributing to something that I desparately don't want to exist. More broadly speaking, I would be very willing to bet that an internet community that places harsher standards on acceptable content would result in a better environment for those involved -- but Reddit's stance during the celebrity photo stuff reinforced their position of 'Reddit as a platform', and I don't see that going away.
- serf 12y ago
  >> I think it's just the sense of heebie-jeebies That's the start of most 'war-on-obscenity' arguments, and usually leads to no constructive ideas. I hate the topic (abusive pornography/snuff) as much as you, but that rational is inappropriate given the peoples' wide variety of tastes in this world, if the material is indeed legal for your region of the world. >> More broadly speaking, I would be very willing to bet that an internet community that places harsher standards on acceptable content would result in a better environment for those involved historically that has only served to push users to other services. the success of the regionalization of 2channel into what 4chan is now is a good example. 4chan's success is widely attributed to the pseudo-anonymity that it's users enjoy, and the founder of the site spoke at TED a few years back on what exactly the benefits of such a relationship with their userbase is. http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_m00t_poole_the_case_for_anonymity_online?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_m00t_poole_the_case_for...
  - iSnow 12y ago
    >historically that has only served to push users to other services. But this is exactly what you want - get rid of the low-quality users and offload them somewhere else. reddit has gotten itself quite a questionable image tolerating pornographic jailbait, necrophiliac porn, stolen nudes and domestic abusers on its platform for very long.
    - verroq 12y ago
      And who is to say these users are inherently low quality? Enjoying any anything socially unacceptable doesn't preclude them from creating content you may enjoy in another subreddit.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        While those users are creating and posting dog porn they are of low value to me. They're creating noise not signal; consuming resources; and creating negative brand associations. By asking them to take their dog porn elsewhere I risk losing them altogether (which currently isn't much loss) or they start posting other content.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        verroq 12y ago
        >They're creating noise not signal Signal to people who care. "They shouldn't be posting X because I don't like X" sounds extremely entitled to me. "They are damaging the brand value of the site" which has nothing to do with you. When I criticise Apple (and you use Apple products), there is no need to take it personally.
        DanBC 12y ago
        A company is free to care about users who want dog porn. That company should not be surprised when other users, or advertisers, steer clear of that company or its brand.
- leoc 12y ago
  An important part of the question here is are the subquestions of what should be regarded as a "common carrier"-like thing (a category which probably includes email traffic and public Internet traffic at the TCP/UDP level), and what should be tolerated on those services, and what should be regarded as not similar to a "common carrier" (which clearly includes, say, the official Wikipedia version of a Wikipedia page or the non-advertising content of an issue of the New York Times), and what should be tolerated in those venues. Part of the problem of Reddit is that it blurs the lines between the two categories and sends vague or contradictory messages about which side of the line it's on. Things that make Reddit look more like a single publisher or "community" include: * the single /r/whatever namespace, which was meant to be used as the marker for the canonical or default reddit on a particular topic (and is still used by users for that purpose, whatever disclaimers Reddit may want to hide behind now) * the partly-shared moderation across subreddits * talk about "the Reddit community" and "Redditors" (wait, it's not a community but rather "a community of communities"? http://www.redditblog.com/2014/09/every-man-is-responsible-for-his-own.html http://www.redditblog.com/2014/09/every-man-is-responsible-f... ? Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor), the Snoo branding and individual subreddits' customisation thereof, the promotion of shared Reddit meetups http://www.redditblog.com/2014/05/global-reddit-meetup-day-is-coming-up.html http://www.redditblog.com/2014/05/global-reddit-meetup-day-i... , and in general the consistent effort to promote a common identity for "Reddit" and "Redditors" * other technical features like Reddit gold which likewise encourage the perception of Reddit as a single platform The just-a-platform argument is hard one for any message board or single-host/owner, single-login cluster of message-boards to sustain. Reddit's even more poorly placed to sustain it than others. Twitter, for example, is much better placed to do so, even though it's a single-owner/host, single-login publishing system.
iherbig 12y ago
I am not who you asked, but if I may step in? It bothers me for the same reason it bothers me that those things exist. They are terrible, and should not be given a platform. I don't feel that we, as a society, should tolerate terrible things in general, much less let them prosper.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  The problem there is that the range of what people consider "terrible" is quite broad. Who decides?
  - iherbig 12y ago
    Society decides. And sometimes it comes up with the wrong answers. But I don't think that pure freedom comes up with the right answers, either. There are consequences to both sides, and the consequences of no action can be just as bad as the consequences of too much action. There is a wide gap between being hesitant and serious about prohibiting things and accepting everything for fear of overreach, in my opinion. We need to work towards a middle-ground.
- kansface 12y ago
  May I ask where you are from? Free speech - bigoted, hateful, maybe untrue, or otherwise, is perhaps the one enduring (sacred) tenet of American society.
  - cmdkeen 12y ago
    Harassment isn't. One of the big points of the article is that when law enforcement doesn't act that is justification that the action is legal and thus "free speech". Except that law enforcement almost never acts against online harassment. There are plenty of laws restricting free speech when it harms others, and I'd hope you agree that some of the examples in the article crosses the boundary into things that should be criminal.
    - makomk 12y ago
adrianhoward 12y ago
> Serious question: why does this even bother you? Not the person you aimed the question at, but… I worked as a volunteer counsellor for a few years in my twenties. Some of the stuff I encountered during those years was folk who were going through horrific, long-term abuse. One of the patterns that you notice is that abusers go to a lot of effort at times to show that their behaviour as normal. Both as a tool to justify it to themselves (this is normal — everybody does it — I'm not a bad person or doing anything bad), and as a tool to further control the abused (this is normal — this is what you should expect — you won't get any better elsewhere). Anecdotally the ones who can find or create an active "community" of abusers — where two best friends both hit their partners and acknowledge it to each other, where everybody in an extended family beats on their kids, etc. — the abuse is worse because there is little or no sense of shame in what's done. It's normal. Now this was the 90s. Before subreddits were around. But this is why it bothers me. Yes, it's just words. But those words are probably making the lives of other people worse.
calibraxis 12y ago
Such questions are favored by Reddit trolls, because they take virtually no time to formulate, require no effort in self-education, and eat up other people's time. Without rehashing the obvious problems of giving a platform to harassment, child porn, spam, etc, just read about how Reddit supported and profited off bros like Violentacrez. Just a little research shows these corporations intervene heavily — but in peculiar ways. http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the-biggest-troll-on-the-web http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the...
fenomas 12y ago
Reddit isn't the government; they're not under any obligation to permit all-speech-no-matter-how-odious. The site chooses who to provide with a platform - why shouldn't the poster you quoted judge them based on that choice?

>willingly allows to exist subreddits devoted towards domestic abuse and snuff Serious question: why does this even bother you?

by verroq 12y ago

>willingly allows to exist subreddits devoted towards domestic abuse and snuff Serious question: why does this even bother you?

jmduke 12y ago

That's a completely valid question, and the answer isn't something concrete. I think on one hand it's just overall indicative of the site's priorities (and again, I completely acknowledge that it's those same priorities which also helped foster the subreddits that I love) -- on the other hand, I think it's just the sense of heebie-jeebies, like being a pro bono lawyer for the mob or something -- as though my presence there is somehow contributing to something that I desparately don't want to exist. More broadly speaking, I would be very willing to bet that an internet community that places harsher standards on acceptable content would result in a better environment for those involved -- but Reddit's stance during the celebrity photo stuff reinforced their position of 'Reddit as a platform', and I don't see that going away.

serf 12y ago
>> I think it's just the sense of heebie-jeebies That's the start of most 'war-on-obscenity' arguments, and usually leads to no constructive ideas. I hate the topic (abusive pornography/snuff) as much as you, but that rational is inappropriate given the peoples' wide variety of tastes in this world, if the material is indeed legal for your region of the world. >> More broadly speaking, I would be very willing to bet that an internet community that places harsher standards on acceptable content would result in a better environment for those involved historically that has only served to push users to other services. the success of the regionalization of 2channel into what 4chan is now is a good example. 4chan's success is widely attributed to the pseudo-anonymity that it's users enjoy, and the founder of the site spoke at TED a few years back on what exactly the benefits of such a relationship with their userbase is. http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_m00t_poole_the_case_for_anonymity_online?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_m00t_poole_the_case_for...
- iSnow 12y ago
  >historically that has only served to push users to other services. But this is exactly what you want - get rid of the low-quality users and offload them somewhere else. reddit has gotten itself quite a questionable image tolerating pornographic jailbait, necrophiliac porn, stolen nudes and domestic abusers on its platform for very long.
  - verroq 12y ago
    And who is to say these users are inherently low quality? Enjoying any anything socially unacceptable doesn't preclude them from creating content you may enjoy in another subreddit.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      While those users are creating and posting dog porn they are of low value to me. They're creating noise not signal; consuming resources; and creating negative brand associations. By asking them to take their dog porn elsewhere I risk losing them altogether (which currently isn't much loss) or they start posting other content.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - verroq 12y ago
        >They're creating noise not signal Signal to people who care. "They shouldn't be posting X because I don't like X" sounds extremely entitled to me. "They are damaging the brand value of the site" which has nothing to do with you. When I criticise Apple (and you use Apple products), there is no need to take it personally.
        DanBC 12y ago
        A company is free to care about users who want dog porn. That company should not be surprised when other users, or advertisers, steer clear of that company or its brand.
leoc 12y ago
An important part of the question here is are the subquestions of what should be regarded as a "common carrier"-like thing (a category which probably includes email traffic and public Internet traffic at the TCP/UDP level), and what should be tolerated on those services, and what should be regarded as not similar to a "common carrier" (which clearly includes, say, the official Wikipedia version of a Wikipedia page or the non-advertising content of an issue of the New York Times), and what should be tolerated in those venues. Part of the problem of Reddit is that it blurs the lines between the two categories and sends vague or contradictory messages about which side of the line it's on. Things that make Reddit look more like a single publisher or "community" include: * the single /r/whatever namespace, which was meant to be used as the marker for the canonical or default reddit on a particular topic (and is still used by users for that purpose, whatever disclaimers Reddit may want to hide behind now) * the partly-shared moderation across subreddits * talk about "the Reddit community" and "Redditors" (wait, it's not a community but rather "a community of communities"? http://www.redditblog.com/2014/09/every-man-is-responsible-for-his-own.html http://www.redditblog.com/2014/09/every-man-is-responsible-f... ? Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor), the Snoo branding and individual subreddits' customisation thereof, the promotion of shared Reddit meetups http://www.redditblog.com/2014/05/global-reddit-meetup-day-is-coming-up.html http://www.redditblog.com/2014/05/global-reddit-meetup-day-i... , and in general the consistent effort to promote a common identity for "Reddit" and "Redditors" * other technical features like Reddit gold which likewise encourage the perception of Reddit as a single platform The just-a-platform argument is hard one for any message board or single-host/owner, single-login cluster of message-boards to sustain. Reddit's even more poorly placed to sustain it than others. Twitter, for example, is much better placed to do so, even though it's a single-owner/host, single-login publishing system.

iherbig 12y ago

I am not who you asked, but if I may step in? It bothers me for the same reason it bothers me that those things exist. They are terrible, and should not be given a platform. I don't feel that we, as a society, should tolerate terrible things in general, much less let them prosper.

waterlesscloud 12y ago
The problem there is that the range of what people consider "terrible" is quite broad. Who decides?
- iherbig 12y ago
  Society decides. And sometimes it comes up with the wrong answers. But I don't think that pure freedom comes up with the right answers, either. There are consequences to both sides, and the consequences of no action can be just as bad as the consequences of too much action. There is a wide gap between being hesitant and serious about prohibiting things and accepting everything for fear of overreach, in my opinion. We need to work towards a middle-ground.
kansface 12y ago
May I ask where you are from? Free speech - bigoted, hateful, maybe untrue, or otherwise, is perhaps the one enduring (sacred) tenet of American society.
- cmdkeen 12y ago
  Harassment isn't. One of the big points of the article is that when law enforcement doesn't act that is justification that the action is legal and thus "free speech". Except that law enforcement almost never acts against online harassment. There are plenty of laws restricting free speech when it harms others, and I'd hope you agree that some of the examples in the article crosses the boundary into things that should be criminal.
  - makomk 12y ago

adrianhoward 12y ago

> Serious question: why does this even bother you? Not the person you aimed the question at, but… I worked as a volunteer counsellor for a few years in my twenties. Some of the stuff I encountered during those years was folk who were going through horrific, long-term abuse. One of the patterns that you notice is that abusers go to a lot of effort at times to show that their behaviour as normal. Both as a tool to justify it to themselves (this is normal — everybody does it — I'm not a bad person or doing anything bad), and as a tool to further control the abused (this is normal — this is what you should expect — you won't get any better elsewhere). Anecdotally the ones who can find or create an active "community" of abusers — where two best friends both hit their partners and acknowledge it to each other, where everybody in an extended family beats on their kids, etc. — the abuse is worse because there is little or no sense of shame in what's done. It's normal. Now this was the 90s. Before subreddits were around. But this is why it bothers me. Yes, it's just words. But those words are probably making the lives of other people worse.

calibraxis 12y ago

Such questions are favored by Reddit trolls, because they take virtually no time to formulate, require no effort in self-education, and eat up other people's time. Without rehashing the obvious problems of giving a platform to harassment, child porn, spam, etc, just read about how Reddit supported and profited off bros like Violentacrez. Just a little research shows these corporations intervene heavily — but in peculiar ways. http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the-biggest-troll-on-the-web http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the...

fenomas 12y ago

Reddit isn't the government; they're not under any obligation to permit all-speech-no-matter-how-odious. The site chooses who to provide with a platform - why shouldn't the poster you quoted judge them based on that choice?