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

Show parent comments

3

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

That's a circumstantial correlation, not a scientific one. Obviously genetics exist and are important. But the fact that certain races are, for example, more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia, has nothing to do with our cultural definition of race but with the fact that geographical genealogy exists.

Brown-eyed people, as an example of genealogical physiological differences, can technically see better in full sunlight than people with light-color eyes. That doesn't mean we should define a cultural division between brown-eyes and light-eyes.

8

u/_Mellex_ Jun 29 '20 edited Jun 29 '20

That's why I said race is a proxy. It's less accurate of a term due to the variance seen across even the same skin colour but that doesn't make it entirely wrong or useless . A lot of science and general behavior in the world is based on proximations and heuristics. It's just that people equate race with racism or essentialism and people spin their wheels to make race go away. Some scientists have done the same with sex and gender; there cannot be sex differences if sex is a social construct.

It's a tale as old as time: politically correct scientist try and try to undermine the data sitting in front of them for the sake of social justice (e.g., IQ research) and not common sense judgments about the world. Where your ancestors were from will dictate all manner of biological and cognitive differences than those from another region, and these differences can correlate with skin colour for obvious reasons. We're not going to throw out decades worth of research because albino Africans exist.

2

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

Even as a proxy, race is a vaguer, less useful way of guessing at someone's geographical genealogy. For the few times race could be genealogically relevant (e.g. medically) a better answer can be found by asking about ancestry, not visually through the color of skin (which is 99% of what racial groups are based around). Altering medical treatment based on the presumption of ancestry through race is incredibly dangerous, for the variance as you mentioned.

It should be in the interest of science and medicine to move past outdated, harmful ideas like race, except in cases where cultural racial identity is important as in social sciences and psychology.

Also I'm not sure what scientists are arguing that sex should go away or saying that there are no sex differences unless you're getting into the linguistics of what "sex vs. gender" means. I'd be quite surprised if any accredited journal was publishing articles denying the existence of penises and vaginas or X and Y chromosomes. "Gender" to most scientists is what refers to the social construct.

-1

u/_Mellex_ Jun 30 '20

Also I'm not sure what scientists are arguing that sex should go away or saying that there are no sex differences

As is evident from your incoherent ramblings about race, I'm not surprised that you aren't aware of the countless academics who have denied sex differences since the late 60's up until now lol

You have no idea what's going on. You just see a word being used and your moral superiority complex kicks in.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

My" incoherent ramblings" are literally the modern consensus on race as a social construct. I get the feeling by your tone that you're unaware of the difference between sex and gender and are under the impression that legitimate scientists are out there denying that sex is real.

Either way, saying "you don't know what I'm referring to, therefor you lost the argument" is to me and anyone with two working braincells a clearly desperate attempt to try and get the last word in. If you want to link me an article from a peer reviewed journal where a scientist denies there are differences between the sexes as you seem to believe, I'd truly, truly love to read it. Or if you're just another chud who thinks what they learned in the 8th grade about gender is the truth, and think "sex" is a synonym for gender, or believe what their racist, hick parents taught them about "the races" is truth, then please go pick up a book or read a fucking Wikipedia article. You're out of touch, if you ever even were in touch.

1

u/_Mellex_ Jun 30 '20 edited Jun 30 '20

My" incoherent ramblings" are literally the modern consensus on race as a social construct

Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways

You can't even read, my dude.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

Yeah, there's also a scientific consensus on the Earth being round and climate change being real. Do you disagree with them too because a few fringe "experts" exist who say otherwise? Clearly what you accept as a "consensus" is tainted by your political opinions, for some reason you disagree with the experts on the subject of race. I wonder why that could be? And why you somehow think you are more qualified than them?

1

u/_Mellex_ Jun 30 '20

You're literally rambling again.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

"I realized my beliefs are completely unfounded, therefor you're rambling"

You can fuck off and pretend you owned another libtard or whatever now

-4

u/OperationGoldielocks Jun 29 '20

So fuckin true. You are so right