Reddit Bans Subreddits about Making Fun of Fat People, Neogaf, and others.

[Areloch]

Well, I didn't say deported. I was drawing a direct parallel to "You could just go to a different internet community" and "You could just move to a different country". As I said, that feels like a weak argument for why one should just suck it up in the face of a possible censorship issue.

If not the fact that they can just move into another community, then WHAT is the excuse that made it OK for fph to ban posters who disagreed with their stance?

I'll be honest, I'm not sure what your asking here.

Are you asking how I feel about moderators on certain subreddits banning people who hold different opinions than them?

If so, I think it's pretty dickish and don't think they should do it.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I don't really frequent reddit, like at all, but still enjoy the occasional content that filters out of it into other mediums, like youtube and forums and stuff.

With that in mind, it's very much a "wait and see" approach for me on this one.

Here's a crazy idea, lads/ladies. Let's see what they do and don't ban in the coming weeks, THEN start raising our collective hackles if things take a turn for the Machiavellian-y-ness-...ness.

As for the specific bannages taking place? I subscribe to that one idea/quote (mis)attributed to Voltaire.

IMO, fuck the fatty shaming folks, but so long as they're not harassing folks, whatever. If they were? Fuck the individuals and warn the mods. Repeat offenses = Action taken. Same goes for the Neofag people.

...Though I hardly see the need for the latter, since Neogaf already does an excellent job of debasing itself.

Reddit as a whole? Basic philosophy for most things, "You take the bad with the good."

/r/learnjapanese/ [http://www.reddit.com/r/LearnJapanese/]

Ooh. Thank you!

I had no idea that existed and have been meaning to take a stab at learning some. Now I have no excuse not to!

[small]You bastard.[/small]

See? Bad with the good. I'm sure this won't go south-

Well /r/neogafinaction just got deleted. It had broken no rules and had nothing to do with /r/neofag (that was part of the original deletions). So..how are people going to spin this as harassment now?

The sub was 6 months old with an automoderator working to enforce rules. It literally did nothing wrong except be critical of neogaf. This isnt them 'banning behavior, not ideas' , this is straight up banning ideas, in this case anything critical of neogaf.

Apparently the Reddit admins have now banned r/whalewatching which was not a Fat People Hate clone but a subreddit about actual whale watching. At this point it's pretty clear the admins aren't even actually looking at the subreddits they are banning, and are simply purging anything that has a title that remotely resembles the the subreddits they banned yesterday.

-Oh.

Well, consider my hackles officially disturbed.

 

[Somekindofgold]

Apparently the Reddit admins have now banned r/whalewatching which was not a Fat People Hate clone but a subreddit about actual whale watching. At this point it's pretty clear the admins aren't even actually looking at the subreddits they are banning, and are simply purging anything that has a title that remotely resembles the the subreddits they banned yesterday.

HARASSMENT! The whales were perpetuating the patriarchy...or something.

Jesus christ just burn it down, if we cant enjoy whale watching without worrying about some trigger happy admin deleting it because he thinks it meant fat people then reddit is done.

 

[Jux]

Well, I didn't say deported. I was drawing a direct parallel to "You could just go to a different internet community" and "You could just move to a different country". As I said, that feels like a weak argument for why one should just suck it up in the face of a possible censorship issue.

Awful analogy. The comparative burden placed is so different it renders the analogy completely ineffectual. One can literally find snother internet community without moving from their chair, nevermind the fact that there is zero financial burden placed on the internet community changer as well.

The relative cost is not the point. Besides, depending on WHAT you want to say, the cost could very well be prohibitive if no place wants to host one's terrible opinions and the only other option is to invest money into web and server hosting in order to broadcast one's inane dribble.

That, and what of the flipside? What if you're rich? Moving to a different country could potentially be incredibly easy.

Is the ROOT comparison of the analogy incorrect? The point of "Oh, you could just go elsewhere if you don't like it"?

Because potential costs aside, I'm fairly positive that part has weight.

It only carries weight relative to the context it's used in. There is no substantial burden placed on the asshole that just wants to make fun of fat people, and the 'but what ifs...' fall equally flat because thst isn't the reality of the situation.

If you want more of a reason why the analogy is just plain bad, we could get into the idea of the social contract between people and the government and how that fundamentally differs with a private platform and its users. Any way you want to cut it, it just doesn't work.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Apparently the Reddit admins have now banned r/whalewatching which was not a Fat People Hate clone but a subreddit about actual whale watching. At this point it's pretty clear the admins aren't even actually looking at the subreddits they are banning, and are simply purging anything that has a title that remotely resembles the the subreddits they banned yesterday.

Okay, I take back what I said, it seems it didn't take long for this entire operation to go to shit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/whalewatching/
http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/39g65l/reddit_bans_rwhalewatching_thinking_its_a_clone/

 

[Somekindofgold]

Because apparently they dont know the difference. Reddit, THIS IS NOT A FAT PERSON.

http://animalians.wikispaces.com/file/view/humpback_whale_margaret_river.jpg/230820598/640x480/humpback_whale_margaret_river.jpg

 

[Suhi89]

On whether this is censorship or not. It's clearly censorship. Firstly, here's a definition of censorship from the Academic American Encyclopedia:

Censorship is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. It may take place at any point in time, whether before an utterance occurs, prior to its widespread circulation, or by punishment of communicators after dissemination of their messages, so as to deter others from like expression.

In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced. Thus writers who "censor" themselves before putting words on paper, for fear of failing to sell their work, are not engaging in censorship in this narrower sense, nor are those who boycott sponsors of disliked television shows."

So whilst the government censorship definition is in there, that's only when we're talking in a "narrower, more legalistic sense," which we're not, so censorship is a perfectly valid word to use.

Secondly, a bit of history about the BBFC, which was formed as the British Board of Film Censorship in 1912, as a non-governmental organization. It was formed by members of the film industry to censor films, attempting to pre-empt local government censorship, but it's still an example of a private body censoring media. Here's how the BBC describes it:

Established by the British film industry as an independent body, the aim was to reduce interference from licensing authorities and politicians. The BBFC centralises film content advice, but the real power remains with local authorities. Local government can pass a film banned by the BBFC, ban a classified film, or change a film's classification.

So the idea that non-governmental private bodies can censor has been around for over 100 years at least.

But free-speech is purely a legal matter isn't it? Again, that's definitely one part of it, but I'll let the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explain my point for me

A more persuasive analysis of freedom of speech suggests that the threat of a sanction makes it more difficult and potentially more costly to exercise our freedom. Such sanctions take two major forms. The first, and most serious, is legal punishment by the state, which usually consists of a financial penalty, but can stretch occasionally to imprisonment. The second threat of sanction comes from social disapprobation. People will often refrain from making public statements because they fear the ridicule and moral outrage of others. For example, one could expect a fair amount of these things if one made racist comments during a public lecture at a university. Usually it is the first type of sanction that catches our attention but, as we will see, John Stuart Mill provides a strong warning about the chilling effect of the latter form of social control.

And more on Mill

As one would expect, Mill also seems to be worried by the use of social pressure as a means of limiting speech. Chapter III of On Liberty is an incredible assault on social censorship, expressed through the tyranny of the majority, because it produces stunted, pinched, hidebound and withered individuals: ?everyone lives as under the eye of a hostile and dreaded censorship?t does not occur to them to have any inclination except what is customary? (1978, 58). He continues:

the general tendency of things throughout the world is to render mediocrity the ascendant power among mankind?at present individuals are lost in the crowd?the only power deserving the name is that of masses?t does seem, however, that when the opinions of masses of merely average men are everywhere become or becoming the dominant power, the counterpoise and corrective to that tendency would be the more and more pronounced individuality of those who stand on the higher eminences of thought. (1978, 63?4)

(It's an excellent entry by the way, and really shows some of the nuances of the debate, especially when censorship is or isn't justified. I recommend anyone remotely interested in the subject read the entire article).

And there's that word censorship outside of the context of government suppression of speech. From 1859 this time. Just to once again correct some misconceptions about the terms.

This says nothing on the merits or otherwise of Reddit's decision. Personally I think it's part of an ongoing PR disaster for them, but I may be proved wrong. I personally won't mourn the loss of FPH, but I dislike the general principle of taking away existing avenues for free discussion without exceptionally good reasons, even if I find that discussion offensive. I'm not sure Reddit has exceptionally good reasons.

 

[Areloch]

This says nothing on the merits or otherwise of Reddit's decision. Personally I think it's part of an ongoing PR disaster for them, but I may be proved wrong. I personally won't mourn the loss of FPH, but I dislike the general principle of taking away existing avenues for free discussion without exceptionally good reasons, even if I find that discussion offensive. I'm not sure Reddit has exceptionally good reasons.

Feel free to check the posts immediately before yours. It seems they've already begun haphazardly applying bans. So unless they reign it in right quick, I'm going to file this under 'PR Disaster'.

 

[EHKOS]

I could be wrong since I just came off an 8 hour Dynasty Warriors Gundam 3 run, but isn't hate speech different than free speech?
There's the theory that now that these people have no place to hang out, their hate will kind of drift off in omni-directions instead of being sort of contained.

I think Reddit can do what it wants as long as it's because of their beliefs, Chick-fil-a won't serve gay people, why can't Reddit ban little hives of hate...and...necrophillia? I mean, I like a nice pale brunette but...she kinda has to still be breathing. But back to my point, I assume Reddit has a ToS that says they can do this kind of stuff, and since the internet is basically like the universe, always expanding, people can find a new place to let themselves rot in corruption.

 

[Areloch]

Well, I didn't say deported. I was drawing a direct parallel to "You could just go to a different internet community" and "You could just move to a different country". As I said, that feels like a weak argument for why one should just suck it up in the face of a possible censorship issue.

Awful analogy. The comparative burden placed is so different it renders the analogy completely ineffectual. One can literally find snother internet community without moving from their chair, nevermind the fact that there is zero financial burden placed on the internet community changer as well.

The relative cost is not the point. Besides, depending on WHAT you want to say, the cost could very well be prohibitive if no place wants to host one's terrible opinions and the only other option is to invest money into web and server hosting in order to broadcast one's inane dribble.

That, and what of the flipside? What if you're rich? Moving to a different country could potentially be incredibly easy.

Is the ROOT comparison of the analogy incorrect? The point of "Oh, you could just go elsewhere if you don't like it"?

Because potential costs aside, I'm fairly positive that part has weight.

It only carries weight relative to the context it's used in. There is no substantial burden placed on the asshole that just wants to make fun of fat people, and the 'but what ifs...' fall equally flat because thst isn't the reality of the situation.

If you want more of a reason why the analogy is just plain bad, we could get into the idea of the social contract between people and the government and how that fundamentally differs with a private platform and its users. Any way you want to cut it, it just doesn't work.

Well, regardless of how good or bad the analogy ended up being, I still feel that the original point of 'you can just leave' is a weak justification for handwaving off what's happening as not censorship(I think it could fall under it, but that's a larger debate).

If you don't feel that's the case, then hey, cool. Agree to disagree then

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'm not saying this is a conspiracy, I'm saying this is Ellen Pao flexing her muscles. We know she's..well..crazy. The interviews about her taking away wage negotiations because its 'sexist' and that she refuses to hire people who dont believe in the nebulous term she calls 'diversity', this is her taking out subreddits she disagrees with and hiding it under harassment.

So just to be clear, your theory is that the mentally unstable Ellen Pao, in a fit of megalomania, saw fit to go on an ideological crusade, smashing what was...to her...the most offensive set of subreddits. As a whip-thin Asian woman, these subreddits were naturally fatpeoplehate, shitniggerssay, transfags, and naturally neofag. She then tried to conceal it behind a paper thin justification of "harassment", when it was obvious to all onlookers that these subreddits in particular formed the spine of Pao's highly peculiar sense of moral outrage. Not dead or burning children, not rape victims or gore, not any of the other myriad of offensive reddits. These ones in particular. Onlookers divined that these specific reddits were core to Pao's worldview. Is that correct?

This is the non-conspiratorial, level-headed interpretation of events?

 

[Somekindofgold]

So just to be clear, your theory is that the mentally unstable Ellen Pao, in a fit of megalomania, saw fit to go on an ideological crusade, smashing what was...to her...the most offensive set of subreddits. As a whip-thin Asian woman, these subreddits were naturally fatpeoplehate, shitniggerssay, transfags, and naturally neofag. She then tried to conceal it behind a paper thin justification of "harassment", when it was obvious to all onlookers that these subreddits in particular formed the spine of Pao's highly peculiar sense of moral outrage. Not dead or burning children, not rape victims or gore, not any of the other myriad of offensive reddits. These ones in particular. Onlookers divined that these specific reddits were core to Pao's worldview. Is that correct?

This is the non-conspiratorial, level-headed interpretation of events?

Yeah that sounds about right, though it wasnt 'in a fit of megalomania', it was more 'she decided that these subreddits were offensive and decided to order her admins to get rid of them now that she has established her seat as CEO'.And she'll get to those other subreddits real soon dont worry. This was them testing the waters.

Obviously you underestimate just how fucking nuts this lady is. Did we all just forget her lawsuit and how she tried to get 2.7 million after the jury rejected her claims she was discriminated?

 

[DrOswald]

I'm not saying this is a conspiracy, I'm saying this is Ellen Pao flexing her muscles. We know she's..well..crazy. The interviews about her taking away wage negotiations because its 'sexist' and that she refuses to hire people who dont believe in the nebulous term she calls 'diversity', this is her taking out subreddits she disagrees with and hiding it under harassment.

So just to be clear, your theory is that the mentally unstable Ellen Pao, in a fit of megalomania, saw fit to go on an ideological crusade, smashing what was...to her...the most offensive set of subreddits. As a whip-thin Asian woman, these subreddits were naturally fatpeoplehate, shitniggerssay, transfags, and naturally neofag. She then tried to conceal it behind a paper thin justification of "harassment", when it was obvious to all onlookers that these subreddits in particular formed the spine of Pao's highly peculiar sense of moral outrage. Not dead or burning children, not rape victims or gore, not any of the other myriad of offensive reddits. These ones in particular. Onlookers divined that these specific reddits were core to Pao's worldview. Is that correct?

This is the non-conspiratorial, level-headed interpretation of events?

Well it does seem someone had a personal agenda in which ones were banned. As has been pointed out in this thread, one of the ones banned you did not list was r/whalewatching. Sounds like it might be a fat hate sub, right? Nope, it is about actual whale watching. But that didn't matter, because the person doing the mass banning didn't bother even clicking into r/whalewatching before banning it for being a fat harassment thread.

Someone is flexing muscles over at Reddit and arbitrarily banning topics they don't like without any real consideration of what they are doing. It is happening, someone is responsible for it happening. I don't know enough about reddit to make any call, but the purposed scenario by Somekindofgold seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation considering what is going on.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Yeah that sounds about right, though it wasnt 'in a fit of megalomania', it was more 'she decided that these subreddits were offensive and decided to order her admins to get rid of them now that she has established her seat as CEO'.And she'll get to those other subreddits real soon dont worry. This was them testing the waters.

Oh I see now. She STARTED here. Not with beatingtrannies, or rapingwomen, or picsofdeadkids. This was just a random sampling. A shot across the bow, so to speak. And we're now on the precipice of a terrifying slippery slope. Pao's reign of ideological terror has only just begun.

Obviously you underestimate just how fucking nuts this lady is.

Clearly. She's obviously some kind of Chinese Joker, with a plan that random and unfocused. It's a good thing we have the denizens of the internet here to offer up their incisive psychological profiling. We might be able to stop her before she becomes completely derailed.

 

[McMarbles]

A LOT of people don't seem to grasp what the First Amendment is all about, or what is and isn't free speech.

It means the government can't stop you from saying what you want. That's it. It doesn't mean private business are forced to give you a platform, it doesn't mean everyone has to be forced to listen to you or take you seriously, it doesn't mean you're immune to the consequences of whatever you do, and it doesn't mean that people can't use THEIR right of free speech to shout you down.

Spoiler: I think this xkcd strip illustrates the point nicely.

So yeah, good on Reddit for becoming slighly less of a sewer.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Well it does seem someone had a personal agenda in which ones were banned. As has been pointed out in this thread, one of the ones banned you did not list was r/whalewatching. Sounds like it might be a fat hate sub, right? Nope, it is about actual whale watching. But that didn't matter, because the person doing the mass banning didn't bother even clicking into r/whalewatching before banning it for being a fat harassment thread.

Yep, that sounds like a pretty silly mistake. Or maybe Pao also hates whales. Can't be sure.

Someone is flexing muscles over at Reddit and arbitrarily banning topics they don't like without any real consideration of what they are doing. It is happening, someone is responsible for it happening. I don't know enough about reddit to make any call, but the purpose scenario by Somekindofgold seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation considering what is going on.

So in this scenario, the ideologically driven Pao or her lacky smote "transfags" from existence, but allowed beatingtrannies to remain? Or they just haven't gotten around to that one yet? Shitniggerssay bad, Coontown acceptable?

I must say Pao's sense of moral outrage is refined to a razor edge.

There are plenty of posters in the mega-thread arguing that there was evidence of harassment campaigns originating from at least a couple of those subs, but...we know that can't be true. The good people of those subs wouldn't have broken any of the sites few rules.

This Pao theory. That's the real deal.

 

[StreamerDarkly]

Spare me your grandstanding nonsense.

And seriously, what is the danger if this is unevenly applied? Or never invoked again? Reddit is only slightly improved instead of massively improved? I don't get why this is an issue. Nor do I get why people assume everything is going to be perfect and instantly fixed when a company says it is going to make improvements. That isn't how real life works.

The censors did what BreakfastMan wanted this time around, so any complaints are apparently "grandstanding nonsense" coming from people who don't understand the real world.

It is of course stunningly naive to think that censoring discussion without a clearly defined and consistently applied system for what topics are off-limits is just fine and dandy.

And BloatedGuppy, if you're just going to post "their site, they can do what they want, not censorship" repeatedly, then what is your point? The idea is to discuss whether they're doing the right thing or not.

 

[Josh123914]

So, Reddit will die a grueling death, and not with a bang, or a whimper, but with a Pao.

Also great to see the usual suspects up and about to handwave this with the not-technically-censorship-so-who-cares discussion.
Okay, 2 things:
- If this was about removing harassment from the site (as the admins claimed), why haven't subreddits like ShitRedditSays been banned? There have been hundreds of instances over the years of users complaining about their brigading. Google it.
- I don't like the hate being spewed by FPH, but their mods went to great lengths to contain it to their board, and now all their bile has been unleashed onto the rest of the site. Congrats Glorious Leader.

Also amazing on the whale subreddit getting nuked. Kinda breaks the whole "We researched each subreddit heavily before taking a decision" narrative one admin put up, doesn't it?

 

[Somekindofgold]

A LOT of people don't seem to grasp what the First Amendment is all about, or what is and isn't free speech.

It means the government can't stop you from saying what you want. That's it. It doesn't mean private business are forced to give you a platform, it doesn't mean everyone has to be forced to listen to you or take you seriously, it doesn't mean you're immune to the consequences of whatever you do, and it doesn't mean that people can't use THEIR right of free speech to shout you down.

So yeah, good on Reddit for becoming slighly less of a sewer.

Reddit became the monolith it is today because of its laissez-faire attitude towards subreddits and moderation. The users of the site are angry that Reddit has abandoned those principles. This is a userbase revolting against a change they do not want, and its completely fair for them to do it.

Yes what they are doing doesnt technically violate free speech in an american-centric first amendment view, but saying users are in the wrong for rallying against this change is missing the point so hard you're on another god damn continent.

This isnt illegal, but its scummy, unethical and open to so much abuse it makes my head spin. We've already seen it be abused and its only been a day since the bans.

 

[McMarbles]

A LOT of people don't seem to grasp what the First Amendment is all about, or what is and isn't free speech.

It means the government can't stop you from saying what you want. That's it. It doesn't mean private business are forced to give you a platform, it doesn't mean everyone has to be forced to listen to you or take you seriously, it doesn't mean you're immune to the consequences of whatever you do, and it doesn't mean that people can't use THEIR right of free speech to shout you down.

So yeah, good on Reddit for becoming slighly less of a sewer.

Reddit became the monolith it is today because of its laissez-faire attitude towards subreddits and moderation. The users of the site are angry that Reddit has abandoned those principles. This is a userbase revolting against a change they do not want, and its completely fair for them to do it.

Yes what they are doing doesnt technically violate free speech in an american-centric first amendment view, but saying users are in the wrong for rallying against this change is missing the point so hard you're on another continent from it.

Nope. Not gonna feel sorry for shitheads finally facing consequences for being shitheads.

Even the most easygoing homeowner is eventually gonna lose it if you keep shitting on the floor enough times.