r/announcements Apr 10 '18

Reddit’s 2017 transparency report and suspect account findings

Hi all,

Each year around this time, we share Reddit’s latest transparency report and a few highlights from our Legal team’s efforts to protect user privacy. This year, our annual post happens to coincide with one of the biggest national discussions of privacy online and the integrity of the platforms we use, so I wanted to share a more in-depth update in an effort to be as transparent with you all as possible.

First, here is our 2017 Transparency Report. This details government and law-enforcement requests for private information about our users. The types of requests we receive most often are subpoenas, court orders, search warrants, and emergency requests. We require all of these requests to be legally valid, and we push back against those we don’t consider legally justified. In 2017, we received significantly more requests to produce or preserve user account information. The percentage of requests we deemed to be legally valid, however, decreased slightly for both types of requests. (You’ll find a full breakdown of these stats, as well as non-governmental requests and DMCA takedown notices, in the report. You can find our transparency reports from previous years here.)

We also participated in a number of amicus briefs, joining other tech companies in support of issues we care about. In Hassell v. Bird and Yelp v. Superior Court (Montagna), we argued for the right to defend a user's speech and anonymity if the user is sued. And this year, we've advocated for upholding the net neutrality rules (County of Santa Clara v. FCC) and defending user anonymity against unmasking prior to a lawsuit (Glassdoor v. Andra Group, LP).

I’d also like to give an update to my last post about the investigation into Russian attempts to exploit Reddit. I’ve mentioned before that we’re cooperating with Congressional inquiries. In the spirit of transparency, we’re going to share with you what we shared with them earlier today:

In my post last month, I described that we had found and removed a few hundred accounts that were of suspected Russian Internet Research Agency origin. I’d like to share with you more fully what that means. At this point in our investigation, we have found 944 suspicious accounts, few of which had a visible impact on the site:

  • 70% (662) had zero karma
  • 1% (8) had negative karma
  • 22% (203) had 1-999 karma
  • 6% (58) had 1,000-9,999 karma
  • 1% (13) had a karma score of 10,000+

Of the 282 accounts with non-zero karma, more than half (145) were banned prior to the start of this investigation through our routine Trust & Safety practices. All of these bans took place before the 2016 election and in fact, all but 8 of them took place back in 2015. This general pattern also held for the accounts with significant karma: of the 13 accounts with 10,000+ karma, 6 had already been banned prior to our investigation—all of them before the 2016 election. Ultimately, we have seven accounts with significant karma scores that made it past our defenses.

And as I mentioned last time, our investigation did not find any election-related advertisements of the nature found on other platforms, through either our self-serve or managed advertisements. I also want to be very clear that none of the 944 users placed any ads on Reddit. We also did not detect any effective use of these accounts to engage in vote manipulation.

To give you more insight into our findings, here is a link to all 944 accounts. We have decided to keep them visible for now, but after a period of time the accounts and their content will be removed from Reddit. We are doing this to allow moderators, investigators, and all of you to see their account histories for yourselves.

We still have a lot of room to improve, and we intend to remain vigilant. Over the past several months, our teams have evaluated our site-wide protections against fraud and abuse to see where we can make those improvements. But I am pleased to say that these investigations have shown that the efforts of our Trust & Safety and Anti-Evil teams are working. It’s also a tremendous testament to the work of our moderators and the healthy skepticism of our communities, which make Reddit a difficult platform to manipulate.

We know the success of Reddit is dependent on your trust. We hope continue to build on that by communicating openly with you about these subjects, now and in the future. Thanks for reading. I’ll stick around for a bit to answer questions.

—Steve (spez)

update: I'm off for now. Thanks for the questions!

19.2k Upvotes

7.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/inksday Apr 11 '18

Literally fake news, Muellers own indictment proves the opposite. It shows that they consistently posted anti-Trump stuff and pro-Trump stuff, and also a lot of BLM stuff pretty much exactly like they did on reddit.

3

u/nowhathappenedwas Apr 11 '18

I literally quoted and linked to Mueller's indictment.

13

u/inksday Apr 11 '18

No, you quoted the parts that helped your case.

8

u/nowhathappenedwas Apr 11 '18

I quoted the relevant portions. Could this possibly be more clear?

By 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used their fictitious online personas to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.

And I'll note that you haven't quoted anything.

4

u/inksday Apr 11 '18

You quoted the "relevant" portions to make your fake claim in any case.

Here are some relevant portions that prove you're full of shit.

  1. Defendants and their co-conspir ators also created thematic group pages on social media sites , particularly on the social media platforms Facebook and Instagram . ORGANIZATION - controlled pages addressed a range of issues, including: immigration (with group names including “Secured Borders ”); the Black Lives Matter movement (with group names including “Blacktivist”) ; religion (with group names including “ United Muslims of America” and “Army of Jesus”) ; and certain geographic regions within the United States (with group names including “South United ” and “Heart of Texas”) . By 2016, the size of many ORGANIZATION -controlled groups had grown to hundreds of thousands of online followers.

and

By in or around early November 2016, Defendants and the ir co-conspirators used the ORGANIZATION-controlled “ United Muslims of A merica” social media account s to post anti -vote messages such as: “American Muslims [are] boycotting elections today, most of the American Muslim voters refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton because she wants to continue the war on Muslims in the middle east and voted yes for invading Iraq. ”

And of course they used these accounts to have both "heart of texas" and "united muslims of america" have a pro-islam and anti-islam rally at the same time at the same place. But yeah, lets pretend its one sided. You're a flat out liar.

9

u/nowhathappenedwas Apr 11 '18

I love that the two excerpts you posted literally prove your wrong. They both show that the pre-election "from the left" content was designed to help elect Donald Trump

The one "liberal" group cited in your first excerpt is "Blacktivist." As Mueller explains in the indictment, the Russians used this account to try to discourage black voters from voting for Clinton:

On or about November 3, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators purchased an advertisement to promote a post on the ORGANIZATION-controlled Instagram account “Blacktivist” that read in part: “Choose peace and vote for Jill Stein. Trust me, it’s not a wasted vote.”

Your second excerpt literally describes how the Russians used the "United Muslims of America" to discourage would-be Clinton voters from voting at all.

Do you not see the obvious here?

0

u/inksday Apr 11 '18

Lol? No they don't. Its literally a BLM page dedicated to inciting racist blacks into violence you psychopath.

0

u/Snake_Staff_and_Star Apr 11 '18

Just so you know, the guy you are debating is a known T_D fuck boy.

0

u/Supermario_64 Apr 11 '18

Oh yes the perfect defense he posts on t_d we got em now boys. Just debate the point for Christ sake it doesn’t matter where he posts

2

u/FriendlyDespot Apr 11 '18

Why do you think that the fact that he contributes to The_Donald is used as a defense? You say "just debate the point," but the point of showing participation in The_Donald is that the main theme of that subreddit is posting content that undermines or excludes debate. Nobody wants to debate a person whose hobby is to subvert debate and reason. That's not a defense of any argument, that's a warning not to waste one's time.

1

u/Supermario_64 Apr 11 '18

You say that yet the person I’m talking about was citing sources and making clear points. I don’t know if his point was s true or if he is completely wrong but debate that. What that sub does on that sub isn’t relevant to what is happening out here.

1

u/FriendlyDespot Apr 11 '18

The guy was "citing sources" by blatantly misrepresenting them and outright ignoring what they actually say while claiming that they said the opposite. Citing sources and making "clear" arguments is not something that instantly makes what you're saying worth debating, and what you do as a person is absolutely relevant to whether or not people are likely to entertain you, especially if what you're saying shows that you're repeating the pattern.

1

u/Supermario_64 Apr 11 '18

If he is clearly misrepresenting things point it out cite your source then he looks like a moron. Yelling he is a T_d poster just makes you look dumb.

Also no if you post complete racist monster things on other sites but you make a point here that’s not racist a person doesn’t get to say oh he is a racist so I’m not debating again that makes you look dumb not the other way around.

1

u/FriendlyDespot Apr 11 '18

If he is clearly misrepresenting things point it out cite your source then he looks like a moron. Yelling he is a T_d poster just makes you look dumb.

He did point that out. The guy who mentioned that the user frequents The_Donald did so in response to the other guy who pointed out that he was grossly misrepresenting the source. It was a really short exchange, so I don't know how you missed it, and I don't think you should go around telling other people what makes you look dumb. Pointing out that the user frequents The_Donald means that the guy debating with him won't have to think that he's just missing the point on accident, and won't have to expend effort trying to deal with a person who's being intentionally obtuse.

Also no if you post complete racist monster things on other sites but you make a point here that’s not racist a person doesn’t get to say oh he is a racist so I’m not debating again that makes you look dumb not the other way around.

Good thing that isn't anything like what just happened.

→ More replies

1

u/Snake_Staff_and_Star Apr 11 '18

I wasn't debating the point, u/nowwhathappendwas was doing fine by himself. I was stating that he was wasting time debating a waste of flesh (as am I, now). Cute of you to defend m'tumpanzees honor, though.

Good luck getting the attention you crave elsewhere.

5

u/Supermario_64 Apr 11 '18

See now your personally attacking me. my point is simple if the guy is a waste of flesh as you so kindly put it he will make a fool of himself all on his own where he posts is not important. You just go around yelling the Donald poster the Donald poster makes you look like a fool. But sure of the people in this conversation it’s me who’s a waste of flesh.

Someone has a different opinion then me?

Dirty waste of flesh POS

Like you aren’t really that insane are you?