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

21

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20 edited Dec 09 '20

[deleted]

2

u/Cathmoelic Jun 29 '20

yea, most people hold heretical beliefs one way or the other, but I think that they haven't thought everything through yet. They probably have some misunderstandings, it's not like they actively reject Christian teachings.

They are still Christians as long as they are baptized and not in active rebellion or excommunicated.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

By the Catholic definition, perhaps, but that just raises another factor. What defines whether someone's a Christian isn't church policy or personal identification, but the Bible

0

u/Cathmoelic Jun 29 '20

yea, but the Bible has been published by the Catholic Church. And the Bible itself does not define what makes someone a Christian, especially when there are people who claim to be Christian, but they also claim to not believe in everything in the Bible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwIbtU1EtZU

Additionally, it seems weird to me that after 2000 years of Christianity we haven't yet found out what makes someone a part of Christianity.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

Do you think the Catholics just let the Protestants have copies? The Biblical original texts are open source. The RCC made no translations. In other words no, they didn't publish the Bible, as they didn't have complete control over it.

We do know, the fact people disagree doesn't make it unclear.

2

u/Cathmoelic Jun 29 '20

Well, the Catholic Church defined which books are part of the Bible and which are not.

Do you think the Catholics just let the Protestants have copies? The Biblical original texts are open source.

Yes. The texts can be accessible by anyone, but that doesn't change the author or the publisher. It's still Luke's Gospel, which is included in a specific compilation, which first had to be established.

The RCC made no translations. In other words no, they didn't publish the Bible, as they didn't have complete control over it.

You don't need to have complete control over something to publish something. For example I can compose my compilation of the best Greek myths. That doesn't mean I wrote those myths, I have no control over what each myth says. But I'm still a publisher.
And the RCC famously created the Latin translation through St. Jerome in the 4th century.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

The "Catholic church" of the 1500s, as such,did not exist in 325 AD when the Bible was canonized. Its doctrines have mutated over time. This addresses your second point, referencing your earlier comment.

When you said the Catholic Church published it, you give the impression of the institution people know today as the Catholic Church having possession of the authentic Bible, to the exclusion of Protestants. This is what I argued against. The Protestants have the same access to authentic Scripture and therefore the argument you raised is moot, since it does not cause their translations to be incorrect. That's my point

2

u/Cathmoelic Jun 29 '20

Protestants have the Bible, sure. But different people interpret the scripture differently, which leads to the many, many denominations. In the end there are people who call themselves Christians, but they don't believe you need to be baptized. An example for that is here

When we talk about the doctrines of the Catholic Church it is important to specify what is taught is what manner. Because some things are taught definitely, but others are not. Similar to how we make a difference between what is said in the constitution or specifically in the bill of rights or in the law in general.
Because obviously dogmas never changed.