3 ms·

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 wa

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.
danielweber 11y ago
> conclude that reddit is not a safe platform to express their ideas or participate in the conversation This is the worrisome part. Say that Joe posts, in conversations where it's on topic, that one group of people are racially inferior. Now a bunch of people get on his case about it, flagging him all the time, downvoting his shit, and tracking where he posts his bullshit to counter everything he says with their own version of events, it sure seems like reddit isn't a "safe platform" to express his ideas. INSTANT EDIT Y'know, I convinced myself I'm wrong, but I'm going to post this comment anyway since it helped my change my own mind so maybe it will inform someone else. I think "safe platform" doesn't mean "welcoming platform." If Joe's specific ideas get downvoted and called out, okay. However, if people are tracking down and downvoting Joe when he posts about other things or tracking him to different places or to his Facebook or to his employer, that's where the line is crossed. Then it's not just "unwelcome," it's "unsafe." And the best part is that this works no matter what Joe was posting that got people's undies in a twist.

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.

danielweber 11y ago

> conclude that reddit is not a safe platform to express their ideas or participate in the conversation This is the worrisome part. Say that Joe posts, in conversations where it's on topic, that one group of people are racially inferior. Now a bunch of people get on his case about it, flagging him all the time, downvoting his shit, and tracking where he posts his bullshit to counter everything he says with their own version of events, it sure seems like reddit isn't a "safe platform" to express his ideas. INSTANT EDIT Y'know, I convinced myself I'm wrong, but I'm going to post this comment anyway since it helped my change my own mind so maybe it will inform someone else. I think "safe platform" doesn't mean "welcoming platform." If Joe's specific ideas get downvoted and called out, okay. However, if people are tracking down and downvoting Joe when he posts about other things or tracking him to different places or to his Facebook or to his employer, that's where the line is crossed. Then it's not just "unwelcome," it's "unsafe." And the best part is that this works no matter what Joe was posting that got people's undies in a twist.