Reddit launches harassment crackdown

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32749408

by adrianscott • 11 years ago

48 133 11 years ago

adrianscott2• 11 years ago

Is this Reddit's Digg 4.0 moment?

5h• 11 years ago

Not quite by my reckoning - but I think the tinder box is close to being lit, large parts of the community already takes a poor view of its CEO.

talmand3• 11 years ago

I agree.

Starting something like this isn't necessarily the death knell, but the inevitable unequal application of it will be.

untog10• 11 years ago

Given that the vast, vast majority of Reddit use falls within these guidelines, I doubt it.

AlexC04• 11 years ago

It would really depend on implementation wouldn't it?

The incredibly strict anti-trolling policies around HN do make it a great place to come back to years later. Though HN also takes care to engineer the social interactions here too. (scores are hidden, upvotes only until you get to a certain karma level)

I do tend to worry a little about bias and inconsistent enforcement of their policies, but also believe that we'd have to see that play out over time.

Without question the stated goal of "diversity" is noble, valuable and, deserves to be pursued. The problems arise in their definition of diversity. Does it mean what I think it means?

What about their definition of "safe"? We're really going to have to wait and see.

I think calling this the demise of reddit is a bit premature.

Though I also struggle to believe that deleting the extremes will make it a more interesting or compelling place to be around.

There's a reason that maniacs stop taking lithium.

iopq5• 11 years ago

It took me more than two years to be able to downvote people. This is not a good thing.

cryoshon2• 11 years ago

Possibly. The frustration over Pao seems to be on the verge of going mainstream despite it being relatively pointless in terms of actual things changed. The shadowbanning of users discussing Pao is more of a problem than Pao herself so far IMO.

My guess: the anti-SJW crowd will leave to go to voat (and if we're unlucky, here) and the SJW & neutral crowds will remain, warping reddit into something more along the lines of tumblr with more cat pictures.

On the other hand, even before this recent Pao stuff, reddit had been getting a pretty solid reputation for being an advertising/PR platform. The shilling and advertising is pretty horrendous, and almost all of the default subs are completely overrun by paid content-- if you don't believe me, just take a gander at how frequently McDonalds, Doritos, TacoBell, etc make the front page with content-free posts that are often as simple as a picture of their products.

I guess you can say "avoid the larger subreddits" but there is a lot of content-based shilling too-- try posting anything about Israel or Russia in the context of a serious discussion and see what happens. It isn't a coincidence.

digi_owl4• 11 years ago

First i have heard of voat...

Karunamon10• 11 years ago

Given Reddit's already unequal application of the site rules (some people can shamelessly vote manipulate, others receive hellbans for merely following links), and the propensities for specific groups to treat mild disagreement as "harassment", this does not bode well.

It gets really blatant if you've been on the site for any length of time. I really hope this doesn't kill the site, but it looks bad.

MisterWebz• 11 years ago

Can you elaborate a bit on the vote manipulation? Other than certain Reddit power users regularly getting their posts to the top of certain subreddits, I haven't really seen anything suspicious.

Karunamon10• 11 years ago

So Reddit's got this community called "Shit Reddit Says", also known as 'SRS'. It originally started as a group of Something Awful users doing what can be described as a trolling operation.

SRS's stated goal is to highlight people on Reddit saying bad things (casual racism, stuff like that). Someone from the community finds a post somewhere on reddit they feel meets the criterion, and they post it there. Often immediately afterwards, the post, and the user who made it, begin losing karma at a rate that cannot be described as coincidental.

One of the rules in SRS is "don't touch the poop" - you're not supposed to participate in a thread that gets linked there. However, looking at the relation between post time on SRS, and karma over time, there's no other explanation for what happens to the scores of comments that get posted there.

Before you say "meh, racists, who cares?" - two problems. First, SRS's aegis has expanded to cover any criticism of the social justice movement, rather than actual hurtful comments. Second, what's happening is explicitly against the site rules regarding vote manipulation (vote brigading) - other subreddits who engaged in similar behavior had to institute rules that mandate either "no participation" links (a CSS hack that disables the voting buttons), or outright banning of intra-subreddit linking at the urging of site administration staff.

Shivetya2• 11 years ago

besides the condition listed below it is not permitted for users on one sub to cast votes on another sub by request/suggestion/etc. There is leeway if the user voting is subbed to both but it is not supposed to happen

untog10• 11 years ago

I mean, rules are applied by the mods of each different subreddit, right? I don't doubt some subreddits have huge problems, but IMO the majority don't, and the site itself works just fine.

iopq5• 11 years ago

A moderator can't shadowban you. But someone criticizing Ellen Pao got a shadowban recently, which means the actual administrators (Reddit employees) did it. I don't know if it was for criticizing her or for something else.

Shivetya2• 11 years ago

Some popular subreddits have pretty petty mods and there is no real recourse to being banned from the sub even if you explain your position and why it didn't violate any posted rules; if anything challenging their decision seems to send most in to a tizzy.

the real challenge will be users attempting to use the system to shut down other subs or posters within. there are some seriously hate filled subs that people do try to get shut down with false claims of reddit rules violations; namely vote manipulation

given they also freely allow multiple accounts will they shut down all accounts they can prove are related? how do they handle multiple accounts on one IP where the users truly are distinct

smrtinsert2• 11 years ago

Can you elaborate? Use reddit a lot, never heard of a hellban.

robin_reala• 11 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellbanning

HN uses it too sometimes. Basically, a hellbanned user doesn’t know they’ve been banned: they can still comment, add submissions etc. The difference is that all their activity is hidden to normal users.

Lafcadio• 11 years ago

You probably heard it mentioned as shadowbanning. That is when a person can comment but no one will see their comments.

stefantalpalaru2• 11 years ago

I really hope this doesn't kill the site

All things must end. Reddit had its day in the sun and maybe it's time for something new to take its place.

Alex3917• 11 years ago

I really hope this doesn't kill the site, but it looks bad.

The issue with Reddit is why would anyone spend a couple hours writing thoughtful comments when there is some algorithm that just deletes them at random? The obvious answer is they wouldn't. And so by and large the people who used to contribute good content have already left.

I doubt this change will push the site into a death spiral, but in general when rules like this are created then it certainly signals that there probably weren't many obviously better options.

arfliw• 11 years ago

writing thoughtful comments when there is some algorithm that just deletes them at random?

huh? i'm a very active redditor across many subs and i've never encountered anything like that. you're the first person i've ever seen even mention it. unless i'm not understanding what you mean?

afeafbfba2• 11 years ago

Given Reddit's already unequal application of the site rules (some people can shamelessly vote manipulate, others receive hellbans for merely following links), and the propensities for specific groups to treat mild disagreement as "harassment", this does not bode well.

It's not even mild disagreements. Most of the subreddits are run like cults. If you look at the mods of the major subreddits, most of them are run by a select few users. The same mods on every other subreddit.

Reddit is used as a propaganda tool now.

A_COMPUTER3• 11 years ago

Is this literal? I've heard that subreddit mods have been caught promoting/demoting content for money. Or even like, Russian propaganda. But I've never had the in to that community to be able to verify these claims.

rrss1122• 11 years ago

I think for it to kill the site, there has to be a replacement waiting in the wings. Digg faded under much more innocent circumstances because Reddit was gaining in popularity. But, this crackdown might prompt somebody out there to launch a replacement.

helyka• 11 years ago

https://voat.co/

kindlez• 11 years ago

Try our platform at http://snapzu.com

Vaskivo4• 11 years ago

I don't like it, but Reddit can do whatever it wants with it's platform. Reddit is not a "free speech platform", it is whatever it wants to be at any moment.

In Portugal we have a saying that translates to something like this: "Who is not well/happy, should move to another place". And that's whats going to happen. Some users will go to another platforms.

And, in the end, we'll always have the chans...

Karunamon10• 11 years ago

That is exactly what it is, by their own reckoning[1]:

    Create a safe space to encourage participation.
    Embrace diversity of viewpoints.
    Allow freedom of expression.
    Be stewards, not dictators. The community owns itself.

As long as they claim to be holding themselves to that standard, people are fully within their rights to call them out on hypocrisy.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/about/values

mhomde2• 11 years ago

Yeah, but it also says "a safe space", obviously some rules would have to be in place for that

maxerickson2• 11 years ago

It doesn't say

    Embrace all viewpoints.
    Allow total freedom of expression.

There is a long tradition of seeking robust debate. There is also a long tradition of expecting some measure of decorum.

jerf2• 11 years ago

I'd be curious about their exact definition of "safe space". That term on college campuses is rapidly evolving exactly into ensuring that a diversity of viewpoints is not even seen or heard, let alone embraced.

I mean this straight; I'd honestly be interested in hearing an elaboration from them, not as snark about how they can't possibly mean it or something. Again, no sarcasm or snark, high principles are hard.

Vaskivo4• 11 years ago

To me, as a channer, those values are "iffy".

What to you mean by "Create a safe space to encourage participation".

Define a safe space. I can't physically hurt anyone, so that's a given. But are they considering a "safe space" a place where I can't say anything potentially insulting, offending or hurtful? In that case, I don't have freedom of expression and neither is Reddit encouraging (my) participation.

mrec• 11 years ago

The British equivalent comes from this famous WW1 cartoon by Bruce Bairnsfather : http://www.ww1-propaganda-cards.com/images/bb02a.JPG

mikeash3• 11 years ago

We say similar things in English. One might seriously say, "If you don't like it, move to Russia." Implying that if you disagree with anything then you're sympathizing with the enemy, and that as long as we're better than somebody it doesn't matter what's wrong.

Maybe the Portuguese version doesn't have those implications, but I find it to be one of the worst arguments a person can make.

untog10• 11 years ago

Eh, that is usually applied to discussions about living in America, not using a specific service. After all, it doesn't even make any sense in this context (move to Russia and... use Reddit still?).

You're right that this one is an awful argument because it's not within anyone's power to move to Russia, usually (or otherwise move away from the various laws and regulations that apply to them in the US). However, they absolutely can use a site other than Reddit without problems.

Vaskivo4• 11 years ago

In portuguese it literally means "going someplace else".

An example: I enter the subway and sit next to a man. For some reason, I stink. The man is unconfortable and asks me to move. I shouldn't move. I am OK where I am. If he's not OK he should be the one moving somewhere else.

smrtinsert2• 11 years ago

Anything banned from reddit that is only allowed on chans does not constitute free speech in my opinion. Most likely it is hateful, or immoral.

I think that probably aligns reddit closer with the USs definition of free speech.

lmeter2• 11 years ago

A definition of free speech that excludes 'hate speech' is faulty.

"Hate speech is not free speech" is a remarkably inane statement.

If you are against hate speech, you are against free speech. Opposing free speech is not an unacceptable position however.

stefantalpalaru2• 11 years ago

You'll easily get banned from a subreddit dedicated to North Korea, as a joke. Create another account from the same IP and try to post something else on that subreddit and now you're hellbanned on the whole site for that IP because of some hidden rule.

mhomde2• 11 years ago

On the surface it seems like a good thing. Taking a stance against the worst "systematic and continuing harassment" should help the most vitrolic cases. Some might argue that Reddit should be an "extreme free speech platform" and this obviously goes against it, but I'm not sure reddit sees itself that way.

I think most people are afraid of the slippery slope and censorship if taken too far. Making Reddit "too political correct" would transform the current culture into something else. Many (or a loud minority) currently doesn't seem to trust Reddit to not do that. What makes things worse is people assume this is a "Monetization of a service"-story they've seen played out many times before with catastrophic results.

In the end I guess it comes down to the execution and agenda.

gdulli2• 11 years ago

It would be nice if they would have a spam/self-promotion crackdown.

debacle2• 11 years ago

/r/iama/ one of their main revenue sources, is all about self-promotion.

gdulli2• 11 years ago

And that's not a problem since it's the point of that subreddit, but the behavior is sitewide.

return0• 11 years ago

Isn't reddit feeding off the entire nation of self-professed internet activists who are out to solve the world's injustices? These people are going to lose their sense of purpose if nobody is attacking them. Don't bite the hand that indirectly feeds you, reddit.

existencebox• 11 years ago

This is a topic I'm legitimately curious about. 4chan existed in a form for a very long time such that (aside from any stated rules) harassment was ubiquitous (at least in /b). That being said, that same domain formed a basis for massive swaths of the internet community and culture we see today.

In any place I've seen these sorts of gestures of "safe-ification", they seem to serve only to 1. be ineffective; for whatever moderation you have it's going to have edge cases and a time delay for enforcement. 2. Split the community, create _more_ (and often more subtler, now that it has to conform to some rulebook) harassment/drama between the split. 3. Drive away productive parts of the community, for any variety of reasons. (for me it's a mix of "I've seen this pattern before and don't like where it goes" and "I don't agree that trying to dictate social standards is the proper way.")

Caveat, and I'm somewhat frustrated that I feel like I need to say this (whether that's at myself or the fear that I'll be jumped on if I don't), I was _VERY_ heavily bullied/harrassed for much of my childhood.

I caveat as such to try and say that I don't hold this stance from a position of ignorance, but that if I hadn't interacted with bad actors in places that are frankly more insulated from real life (the internet) I would have never come to (yes, painful, but still VERY useful in hindsight) realizations about human interaction and my role in it.

This rambled a bit, so tl;dr, Dealing with bad actors is how we learn to deal with bad actors, which is a _critical_ life skill. This even aside from that the strategy being applied does not have a successful history, from what I've seen. (I'm trying to avoid the slippery slope argument, although that's kinda implicit in my second conclusion, I'd rather hear what other people think on this concept of growth through pain, or if it's all in my head)

digi_owl4• 11 years ago

About 2. One thing i have seen more and more as rules come into play on various sites is baiting. In particular when the rules are automatically enforced.

mcantelon• 11 years ago

"Think of the children" justifications for normalizing private sector censorship seem to be a contemporary ruling class focus. Pao's contribution is a smart career move.

techar3• 11 years ago

Just like how intelligence organizations wraps their methods with "hunting pedophiles and terrorists".

techar3• 11 years ago

Has anyone heard of something called "ignore"? It is possible to do online.

mrwnmonm• 11 years ago

what do you mean? is it like facebook's "hide all from X"?

digi_owl4• 11 years ago

Reddit do not officially have such a thing. The closest would be to use a browser equipped with the Reddit Enhancement Suite.

techar3• 11 years ago

As in ignoring by not acknowledging the messages. This is not reddit specific, but for all sites. I can demonstrate on you right now.

DanBC2• 11 years ago

Less possible when you're getting hundreds of messages per day on all your online accounts with eg pictures of your children leaving school or your workplace.

undersuit3• 11 years ago

No that actually sounds like a really good time to start ignoring things. You don't feed the trolls, real life or internet.

What's more inflammatory, ignoring a troll after he happens to find a picture of your children, or aggressively attacking their actions on their medium of choice? Don't feed the trolls.

revelation• 11 years ago

Well, at least they are doing something. It seems like Reddit has tripled staff and VC money but has been doing exactly zero, nada, zilch. The site is the same, as are the ads, the downtimes, the loading problems, the ...

cryoshon2• 11 years ago

Hint: it's an ad revenue based cash-out. They don't actually need more servers or features, they need more curators and ways to channel money.

Sell off the valuable real estate and make the site cleaner for advertisers so that there's less bad PR when one of the uglier subreddits gets critical mass and finds public attention.

edgarvaldes2• 11 years ago

I said it in another thread, I visit a subreddit with very strict moderation. Very strict. The place is wonderful for regulars and newcomers. It is healty and strong. One of the rules is:

If we find that you are active in any subreddits that promote hatred toward any particular group of individuals, your participation rights in this sub will be revoked.

And another:

"Mod abuse will not be tolerated"

Those rules have worked for years.

mreiland6• 11 years ago

I'm really interested in knowing what subreddit that is.

undersuit3• 11 years ago

http://www.reddit.com/r/redditgetsdrawn

dvdcxn2• 11 years ago

If we find that you are active in any subreddits that promote hatred toward any particular group of individuals, your participation rights in this sub will be revoked.

Nice thoughtcrime ya got there.

dmfdmf2• 11 years ago

I'd just like to point out the Pao and Reddit can do anything they want on their property and it is not censorship. Private parties cannot censor, only the government can censor which why the recent nationalization of the US Internet by the FCC is so dangerous for Free Speech. When the FCC comes out with their "Internet Anti-Harassment and Diversity Guidelines" that must be followed at the threat of shutting down your blog, that is true censorship and should not be tolerated.

briandh2• 11 years ago

Actually, the everyday meaning of censorship quite clearly includes the private suppression of speech. Them having the right to engage in it is independent of that.

dmfdmf2• 11 years ago

Well, if that's the case we'd better be careful with our definition and use of concepts or we will lose our freedoms.

dvdcxn2• 11 years ago

Just because you have a right to do something does not make it right. Just because there is a law against something does not make it wrong.

forgottenpass2• 11 years ago

So, what's the driving force behind this?

They're not doing it out of the good of their hearts, so I see three obvious possibilities: making the website a more attractive place to advertize, external pressure hurting their image (like that time they banned some subreddits only after being featured on CNN) or trying to appeal to more women. Did I miss anything?

I assume it's some combination of the above leaning heavily towards advertizement. Considering the number of house ads I see them running, and the anecdotal things I've heard about advertizement sales on 4chan or other uncouth websites.

afeafbfba2• 11 years ago

Reddit is a propaganda site and has been for a while now. Many years ago, it was predominantly run by the users ( commenting and voting ). Now it's just a tool for admins and mods to push their agenda/views.

They might as well get rid of the voting system. Reddit is a joke and the sooner it goes away the better.

_greim_• 11 years ago

Censorship should be the subreddit's decision.

It's fun to watch parallels develop between reddit site operators versus subreddit moderators, and federal government versus state's rights. (For anyone not familiar with this long-running American political theme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights)

hoopd3• 11 years ago

It added that it defines 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".

In point (1) she basically just described how SRS operates...I doubt they'll be willing to use this to punish them, though.

Speaing of SRS, maybe it's time the community starts asking A) how many reddit employees are involved with SRS and B) how many other subs the anonymous* SRS mods also moderate.

*mostly anonymous. It's public knowledge one of their mods used to be a site admin.

cozuya2• 11 years ago

I can't agree with many of the comments here. I have a 7 year old reddit account, go there daily, am still subbed to many defaults, and I just haven't seen many of the accusations of terribleness and the inevitable downfall that have been professed here. In my experience, the growth of the site hasn't changed it much at all.. maybe more reposts to the front page but that's not a big surprise.

It is what you make of it.

forgottenpass2• 11 years ago

I see the submission title has been edited so that it's no longer the title the BBC used. I get what the social pressures are around here, but c'mon son.

Reddit launches harassment crackdown

Related Stories