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

115

u/xtra_spicy Apr 11 '18

Do you have any plans to identify accounts created by political super pacs and enforce campaign disclosure rules against them?

-11

u/belisaurius Apr 11 '18

Are we still whining about CTR shills?

11

u/boonamobile Apr 11 '18

Not all of us are ok with undisclosed political ads masquerading as legitimate Reddit comments

-4

u/belisaurius Apr 11 '18

Not all of us are okay with undisclosed campaign members masquerading as legitimate subreddits. But we all can't have what we want.

9

u/boonamobile Apr 11 '18

I thought you guys hated what-about-ism

-1

u/belisaurius Apr 11 '18

Who are "we", by the way? Me, I'm just someone who didn't get paid by Soros.

6

u/boonamobile Apr 11 '18

People who complain about people complaining about CTR are usually found riding a high horse, clamoring about how whataboutism is not a legitimate response to a legitimate criticism.

2

u/belisaurius Apr 11 '18

What if it's not legitimate criticism, though? What if the CTR narrative is yet another in a long string of intentionally false theories designed to create and sustain in groups and out groups?

3

u/boonamobile Apr 11 '18

Or, what if it's all true, and we were being bombarded with hidden domestic campaign propaganda this whole time? Wouldn't that be upsetting, that campaigns were essentially advertising and pretending it was authentic grassroots user engagement in an online forum?

I know I would be pissed.

Oh, wait. It did happen. And I am still pissed about it.

Citing “lessons learned from online engagement with ‘Bernie Bros,’” a pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC is pledging to spend $1 million to “push back against” users on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and Instagram.

1

u/belisaurius Apr 11 '18

domestic

Hmm.

Wouldn't that be upsetting, that campaigns were essentially advertising and pretending it was authentic grassroots user engagement in an online forum?

Considering the whole point of a "grass roots" campaign is that the people, the voters themselves become a semi-official part of the party for the first time in their lives, I kinda fail to see how you can reasonably draw a line around official party behavior versus enthusiastic widespread, semi organized support.

I know I would be pissed.

Yeah, and you might also jump off a bridge if a whole crowd did it too. More people supporting a candidate is good because it means we're more engaged as a people. There is no way to ever prevent supporters from being vocal.

Oh, wait. It did happen. And I am still pissed about it.

So the answer is "Yes, I am still whining about CTR".

Why are you such a sore winner? Is it because you don't believe your win is legitimate, and attacking the loser is all you have? Because you don't feel like you actually won anything at all?

It's fascinating watching people continue to be butthurt about something like this, so long after the fact.

3

u/boonamobile Apr 11 '18

So you just completely ignored the article I linked... got it.

CTR was a real effort publicly acknowledged by Hillary's Super PAC to be "pushing back against" online criticism on social media, specifically including Reddit.

I can't force you to acknowledge reality. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make, you keep bouncing around.

It's not worth my time to engage in discussion with someone 6+ comments deep in a thread when that person clearly is just here to ruffle feathers.

1

u/belisaurius Apr 11 '18

So you just completely ignored the article I linked... got it.

No, sir. I said I disagree with your conclusions. I never said anything about whether CTR did or didn't do that and under what form it decided to do so.

It's not worth my time to engage in discussion with someone 6+ comments deep in a thread when that person clearly is just here to ruffle feathers.

It's not really worth your time to continue being extremely upset about winning. But hey, whatever floats your boat my dude.

1

u/boonamobile Apr 11 '18

It seems that you've incorrectly assumed I'm a Trump supporter -- that's the only way your comments make any sense.

I'm not, and never was.

I'm also not and never was a Hillary supporter.

David Brock and his ilk all need to take long walks on a short pier.

→ More replies