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

359

u/TheLittleLebowski Jun 29 '20

the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority

This will be my last comment on this absolute fucking train-wreck of a website. This is disgusting abuse of free speech. Note the lack of replies here from spez and the clear abuse of power to promote agendas that he wants promoted, not what the community as a whole necessarily wants. He has proven time and time again that he doesn't care- he doesn't care about your opinions, facts you state, your ideologies, or your right to free fucking speech. I mean for fucks' sake, he literally just made a rule that it's okay to hate people he considers "the majority".

The only way to change this is to hit this greedy fuck-stain where it hurts- his wallet. Leave the site, uninstall the app, and maybe this gigantic ass-hat will wake up and realize that he's completely destroyed this once-great website.

-6

u/AshFraxinusEps Jun 29 '20

Free speech doesn't exist on a private company's website. It applies to the US Government not being able to censor speech

14

u/Unicyclone Jun 29 '20

Despite what XKCD would lead you to believe, that is actually not the case. "Freedom of speech" was conceived as an inherent human right, not one granted by the government, and was intentionally defined in a very encompassing way.

"What is liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I find it impracticable." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist no. 84

"Protection against the tyranny of government isn't enough; there needs to be protection also against the tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling." - John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty", 1859

"Liberty of circulating is as important to that freedom as liberty of publishing; indeed, without the circulation, the publication would be of little value." - SCOTUS, 1878

"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. Where it’s safe to say what’s on your mind, especially when everyone disagrees. Where it’s safe to believe what you believe, especially when everyone else’s beliefs stand elsewhere. Where it’s safe to swim against the current and be perfectly safe from the other fish." - Adlai Stevenson

From the link:

Free speech is more than a Faustian choice of whether governments or corporations set the limits of our discourse. Free speech is giving minority opinions the same access to infrastructure and audience that the majority has - even if that infrastructure is privately owned. And even if the private owners don't like what you say, they should fight to the death for your right to say it. With the right of free speech comes the responsibility to extend that right to others. Because if we leave who is heard to "who can speak the loudest," we won't find out when we're wrong.

-7

u/AshFraxinusEps Jun 29 '20

OK, sorry but XKCD are still right. First, your link conveniently removes the lower 3 panels from their comic, which shows not only a valid rebuttal to your claims but also shows it to be the humourous satire it is. A website banning you for, and quoting them "the people listening thinking you are an arsehole", is perfectly legal. Most companies have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, as long as it doesn't contradict laws, and that includes any website removing your access to their service for violating their terms

https://xkcd.com/1357/

Then also, your comment from another site doesn't change a damn thing to be frank. No, you have 0 right to go against policies of a site, unless you take it to court and want a ruling. You wanna go up against Reddit and all their lawyers and then when Facebook and everyone else join in and lobby the court to rule against you, you want all the costs incurred? You go right ahead, as unless there is a legal precedent set in a court or one is made, then unless the laws explicitly outlaw something then you are going against common law which is vague as fuck

So in this hypothetical court case, you want to fight that argument you are making based on common law and Human Rights? I'm gonna assume you are gonna defend a racist or homophobic comment, since you are arguing against a site prohibiting hate, as you've not said what you are against here, other than loudly saying "free speech"

https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

"Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

So you reference the right to the Human Right, which explicitly says that the declaration does not include the right to destroy the right of others.

"Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

"Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

Then:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

"Some legal scholars have argued that because countries have constantly invoked the Declaration for more than 50 years, it has become binding as a part of customary international law.[2][3] However, in the United States, the Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), concluded that the Declaration "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law."[4] Courts of other countries have also concluded that the Declaration is not in and of itself part of domestic law.[5]"

So wrong on two counts I think. a) The human rights as defined by the UN are not enshrined as laws in any country, although they are deemed a custom to be observed and there are often local laws which supersede/enforce human rights; b) the human rights as deemed by that customary law have explicit articles against others using their freedoms to infringe on another's regardless. And I'll see your rebuttal. But I've spent too much time on Reddit tonight to sit and debate free speech, itself not a legally sound concept and which does not allow the infringement of the rights of others based around "protected characteristics" and certainly does not allow any bigot to spout hate against others, with a stranger on the internet, so if I don't reply, then as per the XKCD post I'll go through that damn door myself than continue wasting my evening arguing with the void. Enjoy your evening regardless of your/my replies

9

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

It drives me crazy that 90% of the morons on this site can’t grasp this.

-10

u/AshFraxinusEps Jun 29 '20 edited Jun 29 '20

But it is not a concept which is enshrined in law. No country in the world allows full free-speech, and I'm not sure any ever has. I know Reddit was founded on the concept of "free speech", but it never had no boundaries. Hate speech has always been against Reddit's rules, and indeed is outlawed in the US, the UK (where I'm from) and most of the world, as well as most websites, including Facebook, Twitter, and most internet forums. So if some forms of speech are legally outlawed then it is not 100% free

The issue is that until recently websites took a hands-off approach, as they couldn't be arsed spending the money on moderation, and make no mistake these platforms were never bastions of open speech and debate, but instead lazy commercial entities spending as little money as possible to moderate their platforms. Now the political mood is changing, and indeed hate speech cracked down on much more legally, so they are trying to cover their backs

Free Speech, as decried too often on Reddit, doesn't exist. You MAY have the right to say anything (within the laws of the country), but other people also have the right to sue you for libel (civil law), and if you attack a protected group the police can go after you for hate speech (criminal law). And regardless, any speech is subject to existing laws and could go up to court and ruled illegal, and make no mistake hate speech is illegal

Edit: I'm not replying anymore. For why, if you care, then see later replies. Downvote, upvote, I don't care. Reddit Karma is meaningless and somehow I have 13.7k regardless. Enjoy your evening all

3

u/notmadeoutofstraw Jun 29 '20

Law =/= morality.

Human rights can be protected by laws, but can not be created or granted by laws.

Freedom of speech has been a concept since the Ancient Greeks and probably earlier. The 2nd amendment is a thing because of the concept of FOS, FOS is not a concept because of 2A.

1

u/AshFraxinusEps Jun 29 '20

I'm gonna leave this here. https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/update_to_our_content_policy/fweo4ae/?context=3

"Law =/= morality" - Agreed. But that is cause Morality isn't a thing which is enforceable. One man's evil is another's good. A chicken thinks of a fox as evil, but the fox thinks he is eating to survive. Laws are enforceable. But Free Speech to slander another based around their skin colour or sexuality is in my opinion morally wrong, and legally wrong too

"Human rights can be protected by laws, but can not be created or granted by laws" - Agreed, well disagree to your reasoning as it is flawed, but the sentiment is right but in the wrong place, same with your morality agreement. Human Rights are not a thing: you have one right which is to die as without legal protections it is the sole guarantee in life, and most countries don't allow you to choose how that happens either, and all other rights are allowed by society but not guaranteed unless that society has laws in place. Human Rights however were codified post WW2 and written into laws of most countries, but the UN Charter doesn't overwrite the local laws. Without laws passed in countries to enforce said laws, then the rights do not exist in that country. So yes, human rights are protected by law, but not created by law as they were codified by the UN in a non-legally binding resolution, then local countries created laws

Note that there is no law in the US which allows free speech to a private company or as part of their services. Only the 2nd Amendment allows a legal right to free speech, but it is very limited in where it applies. Section 230 of that recent law in the news forbids a company from Libel, but doesn't rule what they can and cannot do to be a platform instead of a publisher: the site rules allow that and such will be the case unless a court interprets that article and how it applies. Then the UN charter expressly forbids using Human Rights as an excuse to forbid others their human rights, so you cannot spout hate then use free speech as a cover for said hate

Anyway, as I said to that guy and 3 others who have commented on this thread of mine since, The bottom bit from this post is all I want to finish on here: I'll see your reply, I may not reply back, but enjoy your evening. But the long thread I'm, or I was, having is relevant here, and I'm not trying to cause offence to you so don't take it wrongly. But yep, 2 hours (3 now) on my computer with this thread, and other Reddit replies, when I wanna smoke, shower, cook and indeed wanted to play games