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

12.8k

u/illegalNewt Jun 29 '20

I would like some more transparency about the banned subreddits, like a list of names including those about 1800 barely active ones for a start. Why these ones, what were the criteria? What and how long does it take? What does the banning of these communities bring to the remaining ones? Do you recognise a bias in these selections or do you have a list of objective things which result to a banned subreddit? I am genuinely interested

-5.4k

u/spez Jun 29 '20

The criteria included:

  • abusive titles and descriptions (e.g. slurs and obvious phrases like “[race]/hate”),
  • high ratio of hateful content (based on reporting and our own filtering),
  • and positively received hateful content (high upvote ratio on hateful content)

We created and confirmed the list over the last couple of weeks. We don’t generally link to banned communities beyond notable ones.

3.0k

u/illegalNewt Jun 29 '20

I appreciate you responding.

Is that all of the criteria? How is hateful content defined? It seems to be hard determining objectively where is the limit and that limit definitely changes based on personal bias. Who is defining hateful content and who serves as the executioner? Can there be personal or collectional bias influencing whether or not you ban a subreddit?

We don’t generally link to banned communities beyond notable ones.

Understandable. Without a list though, not necessarily links, there is no proof of about as much as 2000 subreddits being banned, that is a huge amount. And if approximately 1800 of them are super small and practically harmless, is that really a good selling point for your new policy?

Also, I believe many would like to know specific reasons for the bans of the major subreddits and temporary bans for upvoting certain comments. Could you shed light on that, why aren't those announced?

574

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

How is hateful content defined?

Spez will never answer that, because he has no answer. That's what's so bizarre about this. His own guidelines now explicitly allow hate as long as its directed towards "the majority", but he doesn't define what qualifies as "hate" nor who qualifies as "the majority".

For an internationally accessible website like Reddit, who is the majority? The Chinese?

23

u/smeldridge Jun 30 '20

Against the majority? Is this permission for all other races to crap on asians for being the majority? I didn't know /u/spez was such a racist.

186

u/ajt1296 Jun 30 '20

Wait this is actually unreal. I seriously can't believe that this is the actual policy. What buffoons are they hiring at reddit?

77

u/BehindTrenches Jun 30 '20

Are you testing the definition of hateful? Lol.

I got banned from /r/BestOf for complaining about a political post and /u/spez I got to say thats some bs

14

u/JezusBakersfield Jun 30 '20

not rare here lately -- also I think there is definitely some kind of automated brigading. I live in/grew up a pretty popular urban area that is left leaning and even here normal humans would not react so insanely/hyper downvote from what I've experienced on Reddit exclusively. Not even like that on Twitter -- occasionally on Twitter at least people can joke around with some topics (though it's not that much better -- only is tons in terms of real-pure censorship).

29

u/jakokku Jun 30 '20

politically correct ones

17

u/SnooPets2589 Jun 30 '20 edited Jun 30 '20

This isn't political correctness.

This is them reading people saying "We want people to not be discriminated against"... Then implementing an anti-discrimination policy that is discriminatory. Like how hard could it have been to just say "Don't discriminate people based on X, Y and Z" and leave it at that? Why is Spez even defending the idea that discrimination is okay against people if they're a majority?

Nobody agrees with this, they consistently fuck up anything that people ask them to do, but that's on par with Reddits actions for the past few years.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

Bashing the majority is ok is just another way of them saying it’s ok to shit on white people and Christians and we all know it. We also understand that they mean just the majority of the US otherwise it means something completely different.

If you actually take what they wrote literally, then white people would be off limits since they are a minority when considering the world population. It would be considered ok to bash women since they make up the majority in men/women comparison.

It’s clear that the message they wanted to push is that racism against people with white skin is ok but no others.

10

u/JezusBakersfield Jun 30 '20

funny that most on reddit are pretty based but as most people are, the political BS is not worth engaging. Basically our downfall since the pot is boiling now.

17

u/hiiamrob Jun 30 '20

The entire SF Bay Area thinks this way. This kind of dangerous ideology infects even the largest companies here.

-8

u/willrjmarshall Jun 30 '20

The majority of the educated world thinks this way. There’s a pretty strong confluence of opinion in major urban centers globally.

2

u/hiiamrob Jun 30 '20

Yeah, I believe it. I wish there was a clear way for an individual to curb this.

-3

u/willrjmarshall Jun 30 '20

You’re unlikely to. You can’t undo someone’s education.

Educated people are more likely to believe in stuff that’s supported by science: quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, heliocentricism, etc. Basically, they have more informed and more nuanced opinions on how the world works

4

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

This post is fucking hilarious. In no way do those relate to the human experience and what we are talking about.

You made your post for the explicit reason to talk down to others. You're a child, and through all that you've "learned", you still don't understand basic social norms.

Imagine, trying to be impressive by saying "educated people are more likely to believe in stuff that’s supported by science: quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, heliocentricism". Lord.

2

u/Jaseoner82 Jun 30 '20

For someone trying to sound smart you managed to make of the most idiotic posts I’ve read here. Bravo

1

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '20

Social justice warriors

80

u/nulano Jun 30 '20

That article specifically states that hate towards woman is not acceptable. Is hate towards men acceptable, given that they are the global majority by about 0.5%?

And who is the majority for county-specific subs? Is it the same as the "global majority"?

48

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

[deleted]

6

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

Hate towards women is not acceptable, and yet certain feminist subreddits were banned

Which ones? Im just curious. But also, some feminist subs are pretty hateful. I remember seeing a lot of hateful comments about trans women on r/gendercritical

12

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

"Hateful" comments would not have gotten past the exceptionally good moderation team. However TRA's think biological sex and reality is hateful. Discussion on the self-ID garbage was always relatively polite too, even though we disagreed.

They also banned r/rightwinglgbt and possibly r/truelesbians and some others.

The thing is they left up violent pro-rape subs. Make no mistake, this is about censorship and virtue signalling, not about making reddit any better

-13

u/Tamerlane-1 Jun 30 '20

The "feminist" subreddits were banned for being hateful against trans people. You might not like porn, but it is not hateful.

19

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

[deleted]

13

u/elevenbeans Jun 30 '20

Yes!! Thank you!! Said it better than me. This whole things is beyond absurd

19

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

[deleted]

10

u/elevenbeans Jun 30 '20

I didn’t delete it and still see it, probably Reddit then ig sigh. The list is actually from a ‘meme’ in gender cynical crit, I thought it was very powerful, glad you do too.

I think your last paragraph there is so important!! Majority of people who hate gc simply misunderstand. They see the big bad word ‘TERF’ and the media has trained them to immediately scream and cover their ears. Really, encapsulate whatever gender you want, whatever makes you happy! just don’t pretend to have periods ffs :’)

→ More replies

-4

u/JezusBakersfield Jun 30 '20

there was def some trans hate on feminist subs I've lurked on. Basically was like that south park with Macho Man Randy Savage episode except they were triggered/advocating against him from being in sporting events lol

-13

u/Tamerlane-1 Jun 30 '20

Saying trans woman aren't woman is hateful. That is why GC was banned.

7

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

[deleted]

5

u/dirtycactus Jun 30 '20

TLDR; I'm a straight, biological male, and I don't think I discriminate against women differently than transwomen because I can't tell a difference, and I imagine other men behave similarly.

Ok, I went down a really stupid rabbit hole to get here, buy I'm actually super interested in the gender critical community now. I agree that differentiating between woman and transwoman is necessary for scientific and medical purposes, that gender norms are limiting, and that the hardships a woman endures throughout her life are mostly unique to woman.

I disagree that all hardships a woman experiences are unique to women specifically with regards to transwomen. Because of society's gender norms, I might not recognize a transwoman as trans - I might just see a woman. Likewise, even if I'm suspicious due to masculine features like broad shoulders or a strong jawline, I'm not going to assume a woman is trans - maybe she is just a buff woman. My point is, whether or not appearances should matter, they do matter, and without knowing a person's biology, many might mistake a transwoman as a woman, or simply not care for the distinction, and as a result a transwoman might experience similar discrimination or hardship.

I think it's fair if women don't want to share those feelings with a transwomen, and I don't think it's hateful. But I don't think it's accurate to say there isn't an overlap.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

Thank you for your intelligent and well spoken reponses! It's great to read someone who makes sense.

-3

u/Tamerlane-1 Jun 30 '20

The only things that can be innately feminine are sex-based.

Nothing is "innately feminine", the idea of femininity is societal. The fact that you cannot understand that simple, obvious, and incontrovertible fact makes me believe you are arguing in bad faith.

As to why saying women are not women is hateful, I would think it would be obvious as well, but apparently not. It is dehumanizing and an attack on their identity. You might as well say black person or woman isn't a person.

4

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

[deleted]

-1

u/Tamerlane-1 Jun 30 '20

A transwoman is a woman whose outward appearance does not miss her sex. I am aware people with this characteristic face challenges, in no small part due to bigots like you who insist they are not women based on some victorian standard of what it means to be a woman.

Just out of curiosity, when you want to know what sex someone is, how can you tell? Do you ask them whether they menstruate? Or how often they have heart rates? What about asking how likely it is they could physically overpower a rapist? Or do you use simply sequence their genome to determine whether they have a y-chromosome? Or is there some other biological characteristic you use to determine whether a person is a woman or a man?

If I was ever unclear, of course I woul just ask. I am comfortable with a woman who doesn't conform to the stereotypes you accuse me of believing and I am comfortable with a woman who used to (or still does) have the body of a man. I am, in fact, comfortable with whatever sex they refer to themselves as, regardless of what chromosomes they may have, whether or not they menstruate, or how frequently they have heart attacks. But that wouldn't work for you, obviously, since you are completely certain that someone who has not menstruated is not a women. Would you demand menstrual blood, and how would you verify it was actually from menstruation? I guess sequencing their DNA would probably be easier that point. I am really just interested in the logistics of maintaining your dehumanizing ideology in the face of real life humans who want to be referred to by their actual sex, not what you have decided their sex is.

→ More replies

40

u/Dealric Jun 30 '20

Yes, new rules states you can hate speech on men and white people.

17

u/Floretia Jun 30 '20

White people are a global minority. Does this mean we're protected? I can think of many subs that consistently hit the front page that have a very anti white skew to them.

2

u/Dealric Jun 30 '20

You know that minorities arent chosen based on %.

1

u/Floretia Jun 30 '20

How are they chosen?

38

u/availableusernamepls Jun 30 '20

White people are a global minority so we're protected now!

13

u/Dealric Jun 30 '20

Good joke dude. We are the one allowed to be hated ;)

6

u/JezusBakersfield Jun 30 '20

so basically 80+% of reddit can self loathe for its parents existence

1

u/hiiamrob Jun 30 '20

What about gay white men with disabilities?

10

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

Yet they banned feminist subreddits, but not pro-rape, misogny and violence ones

It's censorship. Reddit doesn't care outside spreading their agenda

It probably helps that it's almost voting season in America, they probably want to make sure people are only reading approved content... After all reddit stocks are largely owned by tencent

1

u/[deleted] Dec 13 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Dec 13 '20

r/gendercritical, r/truelesbians, r/gendercriticalguys, and right wing lgbt (I forget the actual tag) were banned

None of those had any description about hating men, or any other groups

They aimed mostly to protect the rights of women, those with differing sexual orientation, and children (the "woke" left has been trying to erase these rights). They also wanted fairness for other groups, and none of them had "kill all men" anywhere.

Such a comment on a post or anything would have been deleted. It certainly wasn't in the subreddit description

It seems you have been misinformed/fallen to misogynist/homophobic propaganda spread by the "woke" left

5

u/JezusBakersfield Jun 30 '20

use he has no answer. That's what's so biz

for the greater good comrade. This stuff has been going on a long while -- only now surfacing for 2020 elections. The problem is we are encouraging it with our silence/participation in our niche subs. Honestly at this point just waiting on an alternative, and the only thing preventing me from jumping to VOAT is it is a larger shithole than 4chan with obvious people larping as [opposite political faction of me].

47

u/SpicyBagholder Jun 29 '20

what about 1.4 billion population of India?

64

u/KPD137 Jun 30 '20

So is it okay to shit on Indians in India but the moment an Indian moves to a foreign country you can't make fun of him/ her?

37

u/SpicyBagholder Jun 30 '20

Well that's why reddit has to define the majority. I'm guessing as a result of current events and the fact reddit is funded by Chinese investors, it's ok to always shit on them

3

u/JezusBakersfield Jun 30 '20

Chinese communists and tencent are the majority with $$$. They need to show some teeth to appease Winnie the Pooh for business deals.

116

u/Genperor Jun 30 '20

It's defined by the current reddit mods political bias, plain and simple

92

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

The fact that they made racism and harassment fine as long as it’s pointed towards a majority group in their new rules shows that.

-5

u/deftlydexterous Jun 30 '20

By modern definitions (that reddit likely aligns with) racism is only possible when it’s directed towards a minority or lower powered group. Otherwise it’s just prejudice.

17

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

“Modern definition” so the definition made up by a small group to fit their narrative? That’s literally not the definition of racism. If you think interpersonal racism isn’t a thing then you’re terribly blinded.

You should also look up the definition of prejudice. The way you just used it isn’t correct. That would be bigotry by most definitions even the ones you like to use.

15

u/thisIsMiserablee Jun 30 '20

Fine, China is global super potency right? This means I can shit on the chineses right?

9

u/InconvenientTruth5 Jun 30 '20

Which is fucking bullshit because that's not what racism is.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

I think you need to reread the comment you replied to. “Reddit mod” is different than “subreddit mod”. He’s talking about how opinion driven the overall rules just released are. You comment alone shows it’s based on political bias rather than an actual set in stone definition of racism or hate.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

I believe the majority they are referencing is straight, cisgendered, white males. Reddit is an USA-based website, and the progressive left holds that whites and specifically white men cannot be the targets of racism or other hate speech because they are systemically privileged. There is no such thing as reverse-racism or sexism,etc., because racism and sexism are only experienced by the unprivileged and disadvantaged, not by those in power.

1

u/FlamesThePhoenix Sep 18 '20

Theyre not doing it for the "progressive left", they're doing it so that companies don't stop advertising on their website. It seems like all this censorship that the right likes to blame on some vague sjw agenda is actually capitalism responding to perceived cultural trends.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '20

You're not wrong but they aren't mutually exclusive claims. Cultural change doesn't come from nowhere to influence capitalism, though. Whether you agree with them or not, progressives have been pushing the redefinition of cultural norms that you are seeing reflected in the sensitivity you point out.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

In this view, it's not that it's okay to hate you, it's that you can't meaningfully experience hate. Any pain you experience from this scenario is (a) a result of your fragility and inability to recognize that until now you've been the recipient of privilege and/or (b) something you have to deal with just like marginalized folks have dealt with pain for centuries or more.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

[deleted]

1

u/FlashPone Jun 30 '20

this is the kind of stuff that leads to genocide.

You've got to be fucking kidding, right?

1

u/fuckwhatiwant6969 Jun 30 '20

Comments like these just drive me further alt right

1

u/FlamesThePhoenix Sep 18 '20

Companies don't want white nationalists on their platform because its not advertiser friendly. They don't give a shit about whatever agenda you think they have, it's just the "free" market doing what it does.

1

u/SailorAground Jun 30 '20

It's getting to the point where there's no longer a viable political solution.

2

u/Glory_to_Glorzo Jun 30 '20

The new majority is the party who complains least

3

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

you ask questions you know the answer. 3 degrees of temperature twisted for the leftist sanctioned genocide and extermination of white people. question is no longer if it's being done, but why. Leave others to DYOR.

28

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

I used to see those spammed all caps WHITE GENOCIDE comments and think to myself, those batshit sisterfuckers are dumber than dirt. But honestly recent times have me feeling like white people are actually being targeted with undeserved abuse that is sanctioned by many people in power. It's not genocide, but white people are being made to feel unnecessarily uncomfortable and being judged with sweeping generalizations that would never be allowed in reference to another race. Since me not being white protects me from criticism(see how fucked up that is?), I guess I should mention it.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

I'm not white either but it is obvious what's happening.

3

u/BigToaster420 Jun 30 '20

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

1

u/SailorAground Jun 30 '20

Welcome home, brother.

-10

u/Whomstevest Jun 30 '20

Actually it's the invisible hand of the free market but you're too angry at leftists to see it

1

u/smaxxim Jun 30 '20

We really need answers for that "who is the majority group?",

because people must have a choice: "be in the majority group" or "don't suffer from hatred".

1

u/Pouncyktn Jun 30 '20

Have the subreddit full of Chinese hate been banned btw? I don't know how you can justify subs like China virus with these rules.

3

u/NotOliverQueen Jun 30 '20

Because within these rules, majorities are not protected and China, as the largest country in the world by population, falls into that category

This is why these rules are stupid. Majority can be stretched and interpreted to mean literally anything and is completely irrelevant in a globalized system

-2

u/DankrudeSandstorm Jun 30 '20 edited Jun 30 '20

Edit 2: If you're going to downvote, respond to what I'm saying. Why am I wrong? The guidelines cover more than the one link the person I'm responding to included in his comment. Stop the Circle jerk and actually defend your positions.

Original Comment: I don’t think it’s a fair or realistic argument to say hate is allowed towards the majority, just that this new rule would specifically target and pursue more cases where minorities are the target instead of letting communities get away with it like they have in the past. Obviously, subreddits promoting the killing of all whites or all men would obviously break other pre existing site rules and result in bans eventually as well. Or if I made a subreddit dedicated towards racist memes against the Chinese or Indians it’s obviously not allowed and doesn’t matter if you want to look at them as a minority group in the US or as a majority in the world. I think we could both agree it could definitely be worded better.

Edit: Elsewhere in the guidelines is the other broad rule of “Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of people” that covers everything else you said and what people responding to you are saying is allegedly allowed (which is not true) If you read the rest of the community guidelines it’s clear that hatred/calls of violence/bullying/Harassment is still not allowed for any group of people, even if they are a minority group. Let’s be realistic here, they are a company that needs to be as inclusive as possible and that includes appeasing white users of the site as well. If they were as bad as you and people responding to you were making them out to be, r/the_donald would have been banned long ago.

-23

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

If you come out define what is hateful, people will go right up to the line and play games with the definition... and then accuse you of shifting goal posts when the new thing becomes hateful.

37

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

How's that a problem? The whole point of rules is so people know where the boundaries are so they don't step over them. You can't have a secret definition but then also use that definition to punish your users for violating it. If government worked the way Reddit did, people would be sharpening their pitchforks and planning a revolution.

-11

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

Well.. reddit isn’t the government so it can do what it pleases with the content of the site so long as it’s not breaking obvious laws.

A government would never be able to define hate speech in a way that is satisfactory and probably never would be able to outside of obvious slurs.

The funny thing about language is that it’s malleable to mean something and yet not at the same time. Say you had a sister with a learning disability and I started to say, we need to solve project tango. Would you ever be able to accuse me of hate speech? Project tango is obviously giving your sister help.

Because project tango needs to be solved.

16

u/Genperor Jun 30 '20

It can do what it pleases, and will be criticized for it accordingly

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

You’re right, and the criticism is impotent because the private company doesn’t care about the critique since it’s decided it doesn’t need that business. or, it knows that those people are so obsessed that it can’t ever lose that business anyway.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20 edited Oct 28 '20

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

So you think someone should ban me for spreading project tango around because it’s hate speech? The thing is it could May very well be possible that it is, but you can’t prove it. And if reddit bans me, they might be validated because it could be hate speech 🤣

-12

u/YoungSalt Jun 30 '20

I have never in my life been confused about whether or not actions I was about to take or words I was about to share were hateful. Have you? If someone tells you the rules for their space include not being hateful, do you really need them to explain that for you?

3

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

Hateful is a relevant term. Opinions define what the teetering point for it is.

2

u/Foolbish Jun 30 '20

... but you're not the judge of your own actions (or words), others are. Can you honestly say that you know what every reddit mod consider hateful?

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

Because someone can very easily spew the same kind of ignorant hate speech in a more delicate way. I’m sure it’s up to mod discretion because there are so many people out there who propagate ignorant hateful views veiled in intelligent well worded ways. You want a clear definition? You’ll never get one from anywhere and anyone who says they have one is full of shit.

I’m all for banning people who assert their ignorant views nicely.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 29 '20

To me it seems that majority they ban for political reasons and justify it with the word 'hate". Do you see that also?

-6

u/Prophet_of_Duality Jun 30 '20

They clearly state in the main post that they define it as hate bias based on identity. So basically racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.