3 ms·

>Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people This is incredibly ambiguous. I think it is important to specify what exactly hara

>Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people This is incredibly ambiguous. I think it is important to specify what exactly harassment isn't, and explicitly permit that. Most people claiming 'harassment' are simply using it as a tool to silence and persecute people who dare to hold opinions that differ from their own. For example, the Twitter harassment trial that just finished yesterday in Toronto. [1] Merely saying that one 'feels harassed' should not count for anything. Furthermore there is a problem with labelling certain communities as being problematic, or whatever word they are searching for. This makes uncommon or novel viewpoints vulnerable to further marginalization if their opponents succeed in giving them that label. [1] http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchfor...

alayne 11y ago
That Toronto guy bothered that woman and her acquaintances for months and months and made ongoing personal comments. If that's not a form of harassment, I don't know what is. Christie Blatchford isn't exactly an impartial news source.
- pervycreeper 11y ago
  Off-topic, but on that point, the full body of communications referenced in that case is publicly available online, and I invite readers to decide for themselves. > If that's not a form of harassment, I don't know what is. You may be right about that. By the way, Twitter has a 'block' function for dealing with 'mentions', as far as I am aware.
  - alayne 11y ago
    She did block him. He started using common hashtags of their activist network to still get attention. If you knew someone was trashing you, it would be very difficult to just ignore it even if you could block it. I'm sorry, I think this guy went too far and the situation needed some intervention. This is beyond just a difference of opinion. Why was he fired? Why is he the only person she is accusing of harassment despite many other people who didn't agree with what she was doing?
braythwayt 11y ago
Spez quoted the existing harassment policy. It is not as simple as “feeling harassed:” 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. The key phrases to me are “systemic and/or continued” and “a reasonable person."
- pervycreeper 11y ago
  I'm sure what they have in mind is pretty well-considered, however, the pitfalls I outlined above still remain. For instance, different people have different ideas of what a `reasonable person' is. Generally, one which is pretty close to themselves! Also, ``systemic and/or continued'' also means different things to different people. For instance, the opponents of Gamer-Gate claimed (and perhaps genuinely believed) themselves to be targets of a `harassment campaign', when in fact, they were receiving disagreement and mockery from many different sources, each only communicating once or a handful of times. [1] So, that wording of the policy still leaves plenty of leeway for the sort of abuse I described above. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity
  - braythwayt 11y ago
    That’s the way laws work: They can’t be applied by algorithm, you need judgment. If you don’t trust the judges, you can’t work around that by writing laws so explicit that they can’t be misapplied. Doesn’t work. If the issue here is that you don’t trust Reddit, we should debate that. I’d say that’s a much bigger problem than not trusting the way that policy is worded.
    - EdiX 11y ago
      The problem with censorship rules is that it's very hard to trust anyone with them because the act of enforcing the rule removes all evidence of rule violation from public scrutiny.
- 11y ago
comrh 11y ago
> Most people claiming 'harassment' are simply using it as a tool to silence and persecute people who dare to hold opinions that differ from their own. That seriously needs a citation or something to back it up. It doesn't make any sense to me how you could claim that.

alayne 11y ago

That Toronto guy bothered that woman and her acquaintances for months and months and made ongoing personal comments. If that's not a form of harassment, I don't know what is. Christie Blatchford isn't exactly an impartial news source.

pervycreeper 11y ago
Off-topic, but on that point, the full body of communications referenced in that case is publicly available online, and I invite readers to decide for themselves. > If that's not a form of harassment, I don't know what is. You may be right about that. By the way, Twitter has a 'block' function for dealing with 'mentions', as far as I am aware.
- alayne 11y ago
  She did block him. He started using common hashtags of their activist network to still get attention. If you knew someone was trashing you, it would be very difficult to just ignore it even if you could block it. I'm sorry, I think this guy went too far and the situation needed some intervention. This is beyond just a difference of opinion. Why was he fired? Why is he the only person she is accusing of harassment despite many other people who didn't agree with what she was doing?

braythwayt 11y ago

Spez quoted the existing harassment policy. It is not as simple as “feeling harassed:” 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. The key phrases to me are “systemic and/or continued” and “a reasonable person."

pervycreeper 11y ago
I'm sure what they have in mind is pretty well-considered, however, the pitfalls I outlined above still remain. For instance, different people have different ideas of what a `reasonable person' is. Generally, one which is pretty close to themselves! Also, ``systemic and/or continued'' also means different things to different people. For instance, the opponents of Gamer-Gate claimed (and perhaps genuinely believed) themselves to be targets of a `harassment campaign', when in fact, they were receiving disagreement and mockery from many different sources, each only communicating once or a handful of times. [1] So, that wording of the policy still leaves plenty of leeway for the sort of abuse I described above. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity
- braythwayt 11y ago
  That’s the way laws work: They can’t be applied by algorithm, you need judgment. If you don’t trust the judges, you can’t work around that by writing laws so explicit that they can’t be misapplied. Doesn’t work. If the issue here is that you don’t trust Reddit, we should debate that. I’d say that’s a much bigger problem than not trusting the way that policy is worded.
  - EdiX 11y ago
    The problem with censorship rules is that it's very hard to trust anyone with them because the act of enforcing the rule removes all evidence of rule violation from public scrutiny.
11y ago

comrh 11y ago

> Most people claiming 'harassment' are simply using it as a tool to silence and persecute people who dare to hold opinions that differ from their own. That seriously needs a citation or something to back it up. It doesn't make any sense to me how you could claim that.