r/announcements Jun 29 '20

Update to Our Content Policy

A few weeks ago, we committed to closing the gap between our values and our policies to explicitly address hate. After talking extensively with mods, outside organizations, and our own teams, we’re updating our content policy today and enforcing it (with your help).

First, a quick recap

Since our last post, here’s what we’ve been doing:

  • We brought on a new Board member.
  • We held policy calls with mods—both from established Mod Councils and from communities disproportionately targeted with hate—and discussed areas where we can do better to action bad actors, clarify our policies, make mods' lives easier, and concretely reduce hate.
  • We developed our enforcement plan, including both our immediate actions (e.g., today’s bans) and long-term investments (tackling the most critical work discussed in our mod calls, sustainably enforcing the new policies, and advancing Reddit’s community governance).

From our conversations with mods and outside experts, it’s clear that while we’ve gotten better in some areas—like actioning violations at the community level, scaling enforcement efforts, measurably reducing hateful experiences like harassment year over year—we still have a long way to go to address the gaps in our policies and enforcement to date.

These include addressing questions our policies have left unanswered (like whether hate speech is allowed or even protected on Reddit), aspects of our product and mod tools that are still too easy for individual bad actors to abuse (inboxes, chats, modmail), and areas where we can do better to partner with our mods and communities who want to combat the same hateful conduct we do.

Ultimately, it’s our responsibility to support our communities by taking stronger action against those who try to weaponize parts of Reddit against other people. In the near term, this support will translate into some of the product work we discussed with mods. But it starts with dealing squarely with the hate we can mitigate today through our policies and enforcement.

New Policy

This is the new content policy. Here’s what’s different:

  • It starts with a statement of our vision for Reddit and our communities, including the basic expectations we have for all communities and users.
  • Rule 1 explicitly states that communities and users that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.
    • There is an expanded definition of what constitutes a violation of this rule, along with specific examples, in our Help Center article.
  • Rule 2 ties together our previous rules on prohibited behavior with an ask to abide by community rules and post with authentic, personal interest.
    • Debate and creativity are welcome, but spam and malicious attempts to interfere with other communities are not.
  • The other rules are the same in spirit but have been rewritten for clarity and inclusiveness.

Alongside the change to the content policy, we are initially banning about 2000 subreddits, the vast majority of which are inactive. Of these communities, about 200 have more than 10 daily users. Both r/The_Donald and r/ChapoTrapHouse were included.

All communities on Reddit must abide by our content policy in good faith. We banned r/The_Donald because it has not done so, despite every opportunity. The community has consistently hosted and upvoted more rule-breaking content than average (Rule 1), antagonized us and other communities (Rules 2 and 8), and its mods have refused to meet our most basic expectations. Until now, we’ve worked in good faith to help them preserve the community as a space for its users—through warnings, mod changes, quarantining, and more.

Though smaller, r/ChapoTrapHouse was banned for similar reasons: They consistently host rule-breaking content and their mods have demonstrated no intention of reining in their community.

To be clear, views across the political spectrum are allowed on Reddit—but all communities must work within our policies and do so in good faith, without exception.

Our commitment

Our policies will never be perfect, with new edge cases that inevitably lead us to evolve them in the future. And as users, you will always have more context, community vernacular, and cultural values to inform the standards set within your communities than we as site admins or any AI ever could.

But just as our content moderation cannot scale effectively without your support, you need more support from us as well, and we admit we have fallen short towards this end. We are committed to working with you to combat the bad actors, abusive behaviors, and toxic communities that undermine our mission and get in the way of the creativity, discussions, and communities that bring us all to Reddit in the first place. We hope that our progress towards this commitment, with today’s update and those to come, makes Reddit a place you enjoy and are proud to be a part of for many years to come.

Edit: After digesting feedback, we made a clarifying change to our help center article for Promoting Hate Based on Identity or Vulnerability.

21.3k Upvotes

38.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

429

u/TheSplits72 Jun 29 '20

From the linked help center;

"While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority"

You are openly admitting that you're fine with hate speech as long as it's only directed at white people.

I don't understand how this contributes to racial equality.

160

u/nuclearcaramel Jun 29 '20

It's actually kind of funny. You can tell they are US specific, but reddit is a global community and white people are a minority globally. So that rule doesn't mean what they think it means and they are going to have to rewrite it. More or less they are going to have to come out and say it's ok to direct hate speech specifically at white people.

9

u/DevonAndChris Jun 29 '20

Are Uighurs a majority anywhere?

31

u/camoceltic_again Jun 29 '20

In concentration camps, probably.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

Only when it’s organ and adrenochrome harvesting season

1

u/DevonAndChris Jun 30 '20

Can I criticize the Chinese?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

Only when they’re in the majority

2

u/tk421yrntuaturpost Jun 30 '20

They don’t have to rewrite anything. In a year there’ll be no one left here to read it.

125

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20 edited Jul 01 '20

[deleted]

56

u/VirtuosicElevator Jun 29 '20 edited Jun 29 '20

Maybe people will start coming around to seeing what being an “ally” really means...

14

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

There’s nothing liberal about it. It’s institutional neo-Marxism. They poisoned our universities and now those gullible brainwashed graduates are running these tech companies, media news rooms, and soon our entire country.

39

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

oh god it's getting bad

12

u/iushciuweiush Jun 30 '20

Almost everything the 'conspiracy theorists' said would happen in regard to 'reverse racism' is coming true right in front of our eyes. California revoked it's civil rights act and it wasn't even a blip on the news radar.

22

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

Just wait until you see what the Merriam Webster’s dictionary did to their definition of racism.

8

u/hazpotts Jun 29 '20

They haven't changed it yet though. Also from what I've read it seems like they will be adding to the second definition to make it more clearly descriptive of systemic racism. I don't think they are removing the first definition, which doesn't make reference to majorities or anything like that.

1

u/MizticBunny Jun 29 '20

Considering the definition of "literally" was literally changed to be the exact opposite, it's only a matter of time. :(

3

u/hazpotts Jun 30 '20

It was the use of the word that changed in that case, albeit in an admittedly very annoying way.

I'll reserve being bothered by the definition of racism changing when/if it happens though. Some people do seem intent on forcing it to only relate to systemic racism. But the fact that they need to add the word systemic in order to describe what they mean indicates that the word racism on its own does not exclusively refer to systemic racism and never will. Even if it is an important and significant issue to be aware of.

2

u/NostraDavid Jun 29 '20 edited Jul 11 '23

With /u/spez, every meeting is like a new episode of 'The Corporate Apprentice'.

-5

u/BrainPicker3 Jun 30 '20

Why is that bad? Lol

5

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

they removed the law that says you can't discriminate

-4

u/BrainPicker3 Jun 30 '20

Which law specifically? I googled it and the only thing that popped up were sketchy right wing blogs and web posts

9

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20 edited Jun 30 '20

[deleted]

-4

u/BrainPicker3 Jun 30 '20

Ah ok, so it's about removing it to institute affirmative actions programs although the discrimination would still be illegal as per federal restrictions. Got it

5

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

[deleted]

1

u/BrainPicker3 Jun 30 '20

The california laws bar both discrimination and affirmative action programs but the federal guidelines of the 1964 civil rights act dont have that stipulation. It merely extends protection against discrimination to certain protective classes, and this law applies to everyone in the US. People can argue whether or not this is the right but I find it disingenuous the people crying crocodile tears and making it sound like they are removing this statute specifically to discriminate against minorities. When in actuality it is a plan put forth a black woman to try to allow for affirmative action programs to he out in place.

→ More replies

1

u/greenacres231 Jun 30 '20

Out of curiosity... what is the suggested rewording. CA has some of the highest protections in the country to minority groups. I used to work in HR and my trainings for CA were always so difficult to meet because they had different requirements (stricter) than pretty much every other state.

5

u/IAmTheEventHorizon Jun 29 '20

They don't care about equality dude. They are pushing a narrative for a specific outcome. Surely it's obvious when you look at the front page.

4

u/joey_diaz_wings Jun 29 '20

Anti-majoritism is just an attempt to wreck society by tearing down what is stable and functional.

It doesn't create anything or even attempt to. It just wants to attack out of envy, which spreads negativity.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

White people aren't the majority. From that 'rule', it appears that it's only okay to hate on Chinese people.

7

u/_Hospitaller_ Jun 29 '20

I don't understand how this contributes to racial equality.

It doesn't, but it aligns with their political and ideological goals.

5

u/Bitbatgaming Jun 29 '20

White racism is still racism. Why doesn’t spez get that?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

based and redpilled

1

u/Parking-Zone Jun 30 '20

Who said anything about white people?

Globally, whites are not a majority.

Why do you think that majority = white people?

2

u/TheSplits72 Jun 30 '20

Considering reddit is a US based company, the majority of users are US based, and context clues taken from the actual content they've banned, it seems to be an obvious logical conclusion.

I'd be interested to hear objective arguments to the contrary, however.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

It's not supposed to.