3 ms·
This doesn't solve the problem. Banning "[a]nything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people" is so open-ended that it could include m
by briholt 11y ago
This doesn't solve the problem. Banning "[a]nything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people" is so open-ended that it could include minor criticism or it could exclude flagrant bigotry, depending on the interpreter. They've replaced the de facto policy of arbitrarily banning things they don't like with an official policy of arbitrarily banning things they don't like.
- gooeyblob 11y agoWhen was reddit arbitrarily banning things they don't like?
- fweespeech 11y agoCan we agree a large percentage of the Reddit population felt that Reddit Inc acted arbitrarily [in general, not nesc the bans] regardless of your feelings on the matter?
- leereeves 11y agoReddit still lacks an objective definition for "harassment". (So does the world, I think.) > When was reddit arbitrarily banning things they don't like? When they banned five subreddits (actually quite a few more than that, but five were announced), without a clear policy that could be fairly enforced on all subs.
- DanBC 11y agoThat banning was consistant with existing reddit rules at the time and was not out of the blue. FPH especially had been warned several times about vote brigading; many of the FPH users got shadow bans for vote brigading.
- leereeves 11y agoFPH wasn't the only sub banned, and brigading was not mentioned by reddit as a reason for the bans. https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/removing_harassing_subreddits/ https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/remov...
- EdiX 11y agoAnd yet ShitRedditSays is allowed to vote brigade as much as it wants.
- afarrell 11y ago> So does the world The world relies on case law to resolve ambiguity
- Udo 11y ago> They've replaced the de facto policy of arbitrarily banning things they don't like with an official policy of arbitrarily banning things they don't like. Reading that thread, the barrier to ban subreddits seems to be fairly high still. A subreddit apparently has to be pretty much centered on promoting violence in order to meet the criteria. That said, had they chosen to go for a low barrier, flat-out "we'll ban everything we don't like" policy, the outcome might have been better in the long run. Short-term there would have been a huge outcry, but after these kinds of people left, the site would probably be more friendly overall. Smaller, but nicer. Instead, they chose to go for a very modest policy change and what looks like reluctant enforcement.
- JeremyNT 11y agoThere is elaboration on what this means if you read the linked blog post [0]: > We define harassment as: Systematic and/or continued actions to torment or demean someone in a way that would make a reasonable person (1) conclude that reddit is not a safe platform to express their ideas or participate in the conversation, or (2) fear for their safety or the safety of those around them. This clearly has a lot of wiggle room for interpretation, but this pretty clearly seems to exclude e.g. "minor criticism." [0] http://www.redditblog.com/2015/05/promote-ideas-protect-people.html http://www.redditblog.com/2015/05/promote-ideas-protect-peop...
- lurchpop 11y ago> not a safe platform in today's world that means a platform where too many people disagree with me.