7 ms·

"According to the report, reddit received 33 requests to remove content ... to do with alleged defamation. reddit stood by its users and refused to comply with

by mattbee 12y ago

"According to the report, reddit received 33 requests to remove content ... to do with alleged defamation. reddit stood by its users and refused to comply with any of these requests." Good on Reddit for not being swayed, but they'd better keep their servers out of the UK. Here in the "libel capital of the world" hosting providers are treated as co-publishers of allegedly libellous content once we've been notified of it on our network. We _have_ to act, though many complainants don't really understand the precedent and try to hand-wave us into taking down a whole site without giving any specifics. I wrote https://blog.bytemark.co.uk/2010/02/07/adventures-in-libel-or-why-i-wont-read-your-forum https://blog.bytemark.co.uk/2010/02/07/adventures-in-libel-o... in 2010 though Simon Singh's case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Chiropractic_Association_v_Singh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Chiropractic_Associatio... was a precedent that improved things.

jedberg 12y ago
This was a big problem for eBay actually. A UK seller could demand that bad feedback be removed for being libelous.
- revscat 12y ago
  That sounds problematic for being able to give honest (but public) feedback when someone has encountered very bad service.
erglkjahlkh 12y ago
Also, they are not mentioning the cases where the SJW subreddits have terrorized the moderators and admins to delete complete subreddits. It's like if those incidents never existed.
- _delirium 12y ago
  Unless they did so using subpoenas, court orders, or lawsuits, I don't see how that's relevant to the content of this report? This is just a report about legally mandated takedowns and takedown attempts, not internal reddit moderation policies. That seems to be how other companies' transparency reports also operate. For example, Google's Transparency Report [1] lists information on DMCA takedown requests and other legal proceedings, not sites they've deindexed or penalized due to spam. (They do list malware statistics though.) [1] http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/
- sergiotapia 12y ago
  Don't know why your comment is being voted down. It's been known that the Reddit administrators will delete any and everything criticizing tumblr-esque sjw. It's been a long time coming but the mental image I had of Reddit was tarnished. Ideal world: Reddit admins would only delete things that are illegal according to the local laws where their servers are located. Then they would only focus on making sure the platform works and leave the content policing to moderators of individual subreddits.
  - jedrek 12y ago
    And yet there are tons of those subs around, how's thar work?
    - rmc 12y ago
      It's almost like that's a made up fantasy?
      - jedrek 12y ago
        Caught in a landslide, no escape to reality
  - chiaro 12y ago
    And the existence of subs specifically about "tumblr sjws" such as r/tumblrinaction and (if that's not explicit enough about it) r/breakingfeminazis you put down to what, exactly?
  - rmc 12y ago
    Nonsense, there are loads of those subreddits around. Reddit bans doxxing, which I think is protected speech in USA, because it can be used to out people who run bigoted subreddits.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      Your because is misplaced. Reddit bans doxing because of how often it is something they wouldn't want to be associated with. They do it to protect their image, not to protect some particular group of users. (I agree that the ban happens to protect those users, I find it highly unlikely that this is a motivation for it)
- wmil 12y ago
  Do you have specifics? Any that aren't mentioned on this wikipedia page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_Reddit_communities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_Reddit_communitie...
  - SixSigma 12y ago
    As a subscriber to picsofdeadkids I'm offended to be called a troll
- chiaro 12y ago
  Your omission of which subreddits specifically is notable. Please, tell me why the site's reputation, community and society as a whole is improved by enabling r/niggers with a platform.
  - graeme 12y ago
    I just checked, and that one seems to be banned. Though in general, I would say Reddit does benefit from allowing lousy subreddits. Not because those subreddits are good things. But the policy of allowing easy creation of subreddits is also what's made Reddit good. There are plenty of great niche subreddits. Once you get into quality control, it's going to reduce the potential for the creation of good communities too. You also need a lot more admins.
    - chiaro 12y ago
      Well, yes, that was my point. However, that particular subreddit has been reincarnated as another I have no particular inclination to name. As yet it's unbanned. By banning that subreddit, and creep pics etc. the admins have already made some broad stances on what is or is not acceptable. Banning them as the reemerge can not be, I imagine, such a huge task as to require multiple people.
- rmc 12y ago
  How do you explain how there are many of those subreddits still around?
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  Until someone can provide a rigorous definition of SJW with criteria that allows anyone to easily categorize whether something is SJW or non-SJW, I recommend that the term not be used.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    SJW is a great term. It's a good signal that the person using it is probably a fucking idiot. See also "I'm not racist but".
    - barry-cotter 12y ago
      Amanda Marcotte is a bad person and bad for feminism. If anyone's an SJW she is. http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/01/untitled/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/01/untitled/ If you want some further reading on these toxic people I recommend this Julia Serano interview. http://www.ravishly.com/2015/02/05/how-make-queer-and-feminism-movements-more-inclusive-trans-activist-julia-serano-speaks http://www.ravishly.com/2015/02/05/how-make-queer-and-femini... If you want some perspective on why people hate SJWs this post is also good. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-word... Money quote >I feel like every single term in social justice terminology has a totally unobjectionable and obviously important meaning – and then is actually used a completely different way. The closest analogy I can think of is those religious people who say “God is just another word for the order and beauty in the Universe” – and then later pray to God to smite their enemies. And if you criticize them for doing the latter, they say “But God just means there is order and beauty in the universe, surely you’re not objecting to that?” >The result is that people can accuse people of “privilege” or “mansplaining” no matter what they do, and then when people criticize the concept of “privilege” they retreat back to “but ‘privilege’ just means you’re interrupting women in a women-only safe space. Surely no one can object to criticizing people who do that?” >…even though I get accused of “privilege” for writing things on my blog, even though there’s no possible way that could be “interrupting” or “in a women only safe space”. >When you bring this up, people just deny they’re doing it and call you paranoid. >When you record examples of yourself and others getting accused of privilege or mansplaining, and show people the list, and point out that exactly zero percent of them are anything remotely related to “interrupting women in a women-only safe space” and one hundred percent are “making a correct argument that somebody wants to shut down”, then your interlocutor can just say “You’re deliberately only engaging with straw-man feminists who don’t represent the strongest part of the movement, you can’t hold me responsible for what they do” and continue to insist that anyone who is upset by the uses of the word “privilege” just doesn’t understand that it’s wrong to interrupt women in safe spaces. >I have yet to find a good way around this tactic.
Alphasite_ 12y ago
I'm not sure that's 100% they can be held liable if they refuse to comply with a judge, but I don't believe they're guilty by assosciation, thy have to follow a similar procedure to DMCA, do they not?

by mattbee 12y ago

jedberg 12y ago

This was a big problem for eBay actually. A UK seller could demand that bad feedback be removed for being libelous.

revscat 12y ago
That sounds problematic for being able to give honest (but public) feedback when someone has encountered very bad service.

erglkjahlkh 12y ago

Also, they are not mentioning the cases where the SJW subreddits have terrorized the moderators and admins to delete complete subreddits. It's like if those incidents never existed.

_delirium 12y ago
Unless they did so using subpoenas, court orders, or lawsuits, I don't see how that's relevant to the content of this report? This is just a report about legally mandated takedowns and takedown attempts, not internal reddit moderation policies. That seems to be how other companies' transparency reports also operate. For example, Google's Transparency Report [1] lists information on DMCA takedown requests and other legal proceedings, not sites they've deindexed or penalized due to spam. (They do list malware statistics though.) [1] http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/
sergiotapia 12y ago
Don't know why your comment is being voted down. It's been known that the Reddit administrators will delete any and everything criticizing tumblr-esque sjw. It's been a long time coming but the mental image I had of Reddit was tarnished. Ideal world: Reddit admins would only delete things that are illegal according to the local laws where their servers are located. Then they would only focus on making sure the platform works and leave the content policing to moderators of individual subreddits.
- jedrek 12y ago
  And yet there are tons of those subs around, how's thar work?
  - rmc 12y ago
    It's almost like that's a made up fantasy?
    - jedrek 12y ago
      Caught in a landslide, no escape to reality
- chiaro 12y ago
  And the existence of subs specifically about "tumblr sjws" such as r/tumblrinaction and (if that's not explicit enough about it) r/breakingfeminazis you put down to what, exactly?
- rmc 12y ago
  Nonsense, there are loads of those subreddits around. Reddit bans doxxing, which I think is protected speech in USA, because it can be used to out people who run bigoted subreddits.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    Your because is misplaced. Reddit bans doxing because of how often it is something they wouldn't want to be associated with. They do it to protect their image, not to protect some particular group of users. (I agree that the ban happens to protect those users, I find it highly unlikely that this is a motivation for it)
wmil 12y ago
Do you have specifics? Any that aren't mentioned on this wikipedia page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_Reddit_communities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_Reddit_communitie...
- SixSigma 12y ago
  As a subscriber to picsofdeadkids I'm offended to be called a troll
chiaro 12y ago
Your omission of which subreddits specifically is notable. Please, tell me why the site's reputation, community and society as a whole is improved by enabling r/niggers with a platform.
- graeme 12y ago
  I just checked, and that one seems to be banned. Though in general, I would say Reddit does benefit from allowing lousy subreddits. Not because those subreddits are good things. But the policy of allowing easy creation of subreddits is also what's made Reddit good. There are plenty of great niche subreddits. Once you get into quality control, it's going to reduce the potential for the creation of good communities too. You also need a lot more admins.
  - chiaro 12y ago
    Well, yes, that was my point. However, that particular subreddit has been reincarnated as another I have no particular inclination to name. As yet it's unbanned. By banning that subreddit, and creep pics etc. the admins have already made some broad stances on what is or is not acceptable. Banning them as the reemerge can not be, I imagine, such a huge task as to require multiple people.
rmc 12y ago
How do you explain how there are many of those subreddits still around?
jsprogrammer 12y ago
Until someone can provide a rigorous definition of SJW with criteria that allows anyone to easily categorize whether something is SJW or non-SJW, I recommend that the term not be used.
- DanBC 12y ago
  SJW is a great term. It's a good signal that the person using it is probably a fucking idiot. See also "I'm not racist but".
  - barry-cotter 12y ago
    Amanda Marcotte is a bad person and bad for feminism. If anyone's an SJW she is. http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/01/untitled/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/01/untitled/ If you want some further reading on these toxic people I recommend this Julia Serano interview. http://www.ravishly.com/2015/02/05/how-make-queer-and-feminism-movements-more-inclusive-trans-activist-julia-serano-speaks http://www.ravishly.com/2015/02/05/how-make-queer-and-femini... If you want some perspective on why people hate SJWs this post is also good. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-word... Money quote >I feel like every single term in social justice terminology has a totally unobjectionable and obviously important meaning – and then is actually used a completely different way. The closest analogy I can think of is those religious people who say “God is just another word for the order and beauty in the Universe” – and then later pray to God to smite their enemies. And if you criticize them for doing the latter, they say “But God just means there is order and beauty in the universe, surely you’re not objecting to that?” >The result is that people can accuse people of “privilege” or “mansplaining” no matter what they do, and then when people criticize the concept of “privilege” they retreat back to “but ‘privilege’ just means you’re interrupting women in a women-only safe space. Surely no one can object to criticizing people who do that?” >…even though I get accused of “privilege” for writing things on my blog, even though there’s no possible way that could be “interrupting” or “in a women only safe space”. >When you bring this up, people just deny they’re doing it and call you paranoid. >When you record examples of yourself and others getting accused of privilege or mansplaining, and show people the list, and point out that exactly zero percent of them are anything remotely related to “interrupting women in a women-only safe space” and one hundred percent are “making a correct argument that somebody wants to shut down”, then your interlocutor can just say “You’re deliberately only engaging with straw-man feminists who don’t represent the strongest part of the movement, you can’t hold me responsible for what they do” and continue to insist that anyone who is upset by the uses of the word “privilege” just doesn’t understand that it’s wrong to interrupt women in safe spaces. >I have yet to find a good way around this tactic.

Alphasite_ 12y ago

I'm not sure that's 100% they can be held liable if they refuse to comply with a judge, but I don't believe they're guilty by assosciation, thy have to follow a similar procedure to DMCA, do they not?