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

[The Lunatic]

Can someone explain brigading vs harassment to me? There was a distinction between the two but I never got around to actually reading it.

Brigading is a weird reddit rule.

Essentially, what is means is, if I post a link to a person's post in another subreddit, the users of the subreddit I posted it to aren't allowed to upvote or downvote the post in question, as in doing so they are "Brigading".

It's basically there to protect against groups silencing other groups via "Downvoting" all their posts.

However, it's not really applied in any even manner.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Brigading is a weird reddit rule.

Essentially, what is means is, if I post a link to a person's post in another subreddit, the users of the subreddit I posted it to aren't allowed to upvote or downvote the post in question, as in doing so they are "Brigading".

It's basically there to protect against groups silencing other groups via "Downvoting" all their posts.

However, it's not really applied in any even manner.

Thank you sir. You are a scholar and a gentleman.

Well, you're a scholar at least. =D

 

[runic knight]

Yeah, funny that it is a hell of a lot more then those small parts pissed at the sudden shift in things and that the whole of people pissed off was who I was referring to. Sure, it makes it a little harder to try to reduce to such simple terms to mock, but considering the entire front page seems to demonstrate that a sizable portion, not just people from those shitty reddit groups, are pissed at the way things were handled.

What about the people who aren't pissed off? Who seem rather populous themselves? Would Reddit have been worth a damn with them? Yes or no?

The argument isn't about whether or not a large number of people are pissed off. It's the uh...how to put this...puffery...of suggesting that only the people who share your outlook make a given place "worth a damn".

My point was that the idea that people pissed off at sudden changes in behaviors in a site they participated in and helped build up should just leave it and go elsewhere was an ignorant argument. Much like the sort of backwards redneck nationalist stereotype often played for laughs telling someone to "love it or leave it", it reeks of an entitlement to push the change they want, but demand others merely accept it.

The people pissed currently, a sizable enough portion to overrun the front page and all that, likely contains a good portion of the people who were with the site n the early days promoting it and helping it actually become relevant on the internet. Despite your disingenuous presentation and worthless snark that the subreddditers immediately effected were the ones I was talking about exclusively, or that because they are pissed about what happened to people who are quite frankly assholes somehow is relevant, the full compliment of people pissed should not be simply be expected to just leave and find a new site if they put the time and effort helping built this one up, which was the point I was calling out before.

It isn't that they are the only ones who are worth a damn, it is that they were part of the ones who helped make the site worth a damn, so they should naturally have a right to protest the shift in management without simply being told to "love it or leave it" as though those currently happy are the only ones who's opinion is worth a damn.

 

[Alterego-X]

Can someone explain brigading vs harassment to me? There was a distinction between the two but I never got around to actually reading it.

what the lunatic said.

In this reference's context, brigading also means mass posting from other sub's members, and upvoting eac other's posts, so the whole planetside 2 sub got overloaded with Kotakuinaction threads about how outrageous the mods are, and how funny and cool it is to call transvestites and trannssexuals "traps", instead of planetside 2 discussion.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Despite your disingenuous presentation and worthless snark

Damn, Runic. You get particularly salty when people disagree with you, don't you? Settle down.

It isn't that they are the only ones who are worth a damn

Well then don't imply it!

so they should naturally have a right to protest the shift in management without simply being told to "love it or leave it" as though those currently happy are the only ones who's opinion is worth a damn.

They have every right to protest, and other people have every right to utter meaningless platitudes at them in reply. Everyone is well within their rights. Opinions vary on who is being the most ridiculous, as usual.

What the lunatic said.

In this reference's context, brigading also means mass posting from other sub's members, and upvoting their own posts

You're too late! The Lunatic scooped you! He is my new lead reporter.

 

[vallorn]

What, effective forum moderation on Reddit?

Well that's neat. They should probably get to the bans on people being idiots with the swastika flags on r/all next.

Not that they're breaking rules, per se, but because nothing of value would be lost.

Uhh... Banning people who have broken no rules? Isn't that kind of... Wrong? Or at the very least, something that can hurt a lot of people if it becomes a precedent.

But they didn't even remove the shitheads, they just repo'd their apartment in a way that the lease never said they could. Now these shitheads are hanging around and sleeping the couches of other people's houses.
At least when they were dealing weed before it was in their own little zone. Now they've been hauled out in a way that nobody knew was allowed to happen before, and many other subs are afraid they'll be next. Going so far as to set up a new apartment in that place Voat.co across the street.

If I were a homeowner, then kicking out the shitheads and letting them ruin other people's houses, like Voat.co across the street, would be the PERFECT result.

They don't have to really censor assholes away from the Internet, just from reddit.

Let all the scum gather elsewhere, and leave reddit for normal people who have no fear of getting banned for harrassment.

That's really just a "If you did nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" attitude which tends to be an excuse for totalitarianism.

In other news. Defending free speech when someone says something you disagree with is easy. When someone says something you disagree with it becomes harder. When someone says something that you hate, defending free speech becomes very difficult.

However, Free speech is only free when people can say all of these things without fear of reprisals from on high. If you decide that "This kind of speech isn't allowed" then you cannot logically be for free speech. You are for speech that falls within categories that you believe are worthy rather than free speech for all.

 

[The Lunatic]

what the lunatic said.

In this reference's context, brigading also means mass posting from other sub's members, and upvoting eac other's posts, so the whole planetside 2 sub got overloaded with Kotakuinaction threads about how outrageous the mods are, and how funny and cool it is to call transvestites and trannssexuals "traps", instead of planetside 2 discussion.

Reddit is very strange when it comes to Brigading. It's not even an official rule.

In fact, the rules even state that it's acceptable to "Share Reddit Links with your friends".

However, if you're caught doing it, you'll be shadow banned, and now we're seeing that some subreddits that get caught doing it are getting deleted entirely.

So, yeah, it's an odd thing.

 

[runic knight]

Despite your disingenuous presentation and worthless snark

Damn, Runic. You get particularly salty when people disagree with you, don't you? Settle down.

Not really, I do have less patience for snark and misrepresentation of my overall argument though then usual today.

Well then don't imply it!

I didn't intend to. The full reply of that part again. Notice how I start with a complaint at the "you can just leave" idea and the rest of my paragraph centers around that idea, criticizing that mentality itself. Sorry that you misunderstood.

"You know I find it interesting myself how quickly the "you can just leave" attitude comes up as an excuse for this weird sort of behavior in sites as though the users have no ability or right to disagree with the sites they promoted and helped grow in actual importance and value. Because lets be honest, without the people that are currently being pissed off right now, reddit itself would never have been worth a damn. So I can't blame those that want to stick with the site and get changes to what they see as something wrong with the current actions, even if it is protesting them shutting down specific subreddits with little to no discernible consistency while still claiming to be about free speech."

They have every right to protest, and other people have every right to utter meaningless platitudes at them in reply. Everyone is well within their rights. Opinions vary on who is being the most ridiculous, as usual.

Very true. And a response of platitudes will result in greater and greater negative response as well if nothing is actually addressed.

But it seems you and I are in agreement that the people presenting the idea of "they should just leave" were in the wrong though.

 

[Silence]

Yeah, funny that it is a hell of a lot more then those small parts pissed at the sudden shift in things and that the whole of people pissed off was who I was referring to. Sure, it makes it a little harder to try to reduce to such simple terms to mock, but considering the entire front page seems to demonstrate that a sizable portion, not just people from those shitty reddit groups, are pissed at the way things were handled.

What about the people who aren't pissed off? Who seem rather populous themselves? Would Reddit have been worth a damn with them? Yes or no?

The argument isn't about whether or not a large number of people are pissed off. It's the uh...how to put this...puffery...of suggesting that only the people who share your outlook make a given place "worth a damn".

This would interest me as well, how many of the people are for and how many are against banning subreddits. From the things I read I get the impression that many people used reddit, just because it was this free and so committed on free speech.
If this is true, most redditors would be angry right now.

I also read defense of the banning of the subreddits (well, they obviously didn't mention the not-banned "bad" subreddits), but I did not have the impression these people did even use reddit.

How many subreddits are in favour of banning in such a way? How many are against it?

 

[Alterego-X]

That's really just a "If you did nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" attitude which tends to be an excuse for totalitarianism.

Well, websites with moderators ARE all totalitarian. They might allow lots of speech, or all legal speech, or all legal speech inside a particular topic, or very polite speech about any topic, or very polite speech about a particular topic. But in the end, the mods admins and owners always have a total control over what's allowed to go on.

That's why above we were not talking about defending Free Speech as a principle of organizing society, but as an analogy to organizing your own house.

It's not a moral issue, it's a practical one.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Redditors are such whiny little babies. I cannot for the life of me understand the kind of people who would spend all of their days relentlessly mocking others. What sad, sad little people.

Wow... I was never really familiar with Reddit, and now I thank God for that.

Just so you know, Reddit isn't some unified community. There are subreddits like the ones mentioned in this thread, and yeah, they're pretty fucking awful(but then there's subreddits that spoof them like /r/farpeoplehate [http://www.reddit.com/r/farpeoplehate/]). And there are political and activist related subreddits that are pretty much giant echo chambers.

But then there are topic-focused subreddits. And those are some of the best places to discuss a specific topic to be found. They can be broad, like /r/anime/ [http://www.reddit.com/r/anime/] or /r/visualnovels/ [http://www.reddit.com/r/visualnovels/], or you can get more specific, such as /r/projecteternity/ [http://www.reddit.com/r/projecteternity/] or /r/xkcd/ [http://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/]. Want to learn how to draw? /r/artfundamentals/ [http://www.reddit.com/r/ArtFundamentals/] wouldn't be a bad place to start. Or try /r/learnjapanese/ [http://www.reddit.com/r/LearnJapanese/] to start learning a new language(if the language you want to learn happens to be Japanese). Maybe you feel like listening to music and want to try something new. /r/listentothis/ [http://www.reddit.com/r/listentothis/] has you covered.

Reddit definitely has its dark and grungy side, but overall, it's the best place I've found for discussing most of the topics I'm interested in, including gaming.

#notallredditors

I'm aware of how reddit works thank you, but it's kinda hard to see the good side when the whole front page is people being mad that their favorite subreddit got banned.

#bullshitargument

Who even looks at the front page? Apparently some assholes, which is a good reason for me to continue not going to the front page. As I said, Reddit is not a single community, and you trying to pigeonhole all of us into one only speaks badly for your argument, not the communities I'm part of, all of which are happily doing their own thing and paying this whole kerfuffle no mind at all(well, except /r/xkcd/, but given the nature of the webcomic, it'd be weird for them not to talk about it). You may as well expand your invective to include all internet users regardless of website if you're fine with that level of accuracy.

Want to talk bad about /r/fatpeoplehate/? Go ahead. It was a stupid subreddit. There are a lot of stupid subreddits. But then, there are a lot of subreddits, so it's kind of inevitable that some would be pretty shit. But claiming that you know how Reddit works and then immediately demonstrating that you either really don't or simply don't give a shit about insulting entire swaths of the internet who have nothing to do with what you're complaining about doesn't exactly make what you're saying any better than what they're saying.

It was an overstatement, not an accurate representation of reddit. I am myself on many subreddits that I enjoy and that does not stop me from saying a moderate portion of redditors are awful people or irritating trolls, especially on popular subreddits. And an awful lot of subreddits are complete cesspools. If you don't feel concerned then by all mean let it roll off your back. Jesus.

I'm sorry, some redditors are whiny little babies. Does that make you happier?

Given the current trend on gaming sites of insulting anyone even nominally associated with people doing things that you don't like and using it as a pretext for harassment and abuse(on all sides), yes, I am made just the tiniest bit happier by someone backing off from extreme generalizations and mischaracterizations.

 

[vallorn]

There's almost no such thing as "illegal content" in the United States (aside from the obvious one). The Supreme Court dealt with animal snuff porn just a few years ago. Protected speech. That was the "crush video" case, which I am not going to try and look up while I'm at work.

Animal abuse is illegal. Documentation of animal abuse is not.

Huh! I didn't know that. Weird.

I know /r/Jailbait got banned a while back, also not technically illegal, but... Well, you know.

Reddit seemingly has a habit for inconsistency.

As far as I know, the only thing that is not protected speech is "Fighting words", that is to say, words directly inciting violence or otherwise breaching the peace.

The supreme court outlined them with

insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ? have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem.

 

[vallorn]

That's really just a "If you did nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" attitude which tends to be an excuse for totalitarianism.

Well, websites with moderators ARE all totalitarian. They might allow lots of speech, or all legal speech, or all legal speech inside a particular topic, or very polite speech about any topic, or very polite speech about a particular topic. But in the end, the mods admins and owners always have a total control over what's allowed to go on.

That's why above we were not talking about defending Free Speech as a principle of organizing society, but as an analogy to organizing your own house.

It's not a moral issue, it's a practical one.

Then do they not have a responsibility to not exercise their power? When "organizing their own house" leads to this level of conflict and people fetching pitch and torches, does this not show that they cannot only take into account their desires but also the desires of those who inhabit their "house"?

And the house analogy falls apart somewhat. They are closer to a village shop selling all sorts of things. Now, they have taken a whole range of popular products off of the shelves and given reasons that many regard as inadequate. The backlash from this will not only push away those who liked those products but also a wide number of other people, and as websites like Reddit make their money completely from traffic, losing said traffic will hurt the website in the longer term.

 

[Alterego-X]

Then do they not have a responsibility to not exercise their power?

No, they don't. They are allowed to kick literally everyone out, and reorganize the website as their personal blog, if they want to.

And the house analogy falls apart somewhat. They are closer to a village shop selling all sorts of things. Now, they have taken a whole range of popular products off of the shelves and given reasons that many regard as inadequate. The backlash from this will not only push away those who liked those products but also a wide number of other people, and as websites like Reddit make their money completely from traffic, losing said traffic will hurt the website in the longer term.

But again, that's a practical argument, not a moral one.

You may be right, and one of the the biggest online communities will crumble without the inclusion of commenters who like to dehumanize overweight people.

But it's also possible that they will greatly benefit from pushing all of them over into another site, along with the kind of unconditional Free Speech supporters who see this as a matter of principle, then profit from the reputation of being the biggest mainstream, sane community, in contrast with voat or wherever they go, that would be getting known as a wretced hive of scum and villainy, and only attract a specific subdemographic of edgy teenagers and neckbeards as a new 4chan.

 

[vallorn]

And the house analogy falls apart somewhat. They are closer to a village shop selling all sorts of things. Now, they have taken a whole range of popular products off of the shelves and given reasons that many regard as inadequate. The backlash from this will not only push away those who liked those products but also a wide number of other people, and as websites like Reddit make their money completely from traffic, losing said traffic will hurt the website in the longer term.

If it's a village shop then everyone will keep going there no matter what. It's a village, there's only one shop.

Or someone will make a new shop, or they will start going into town or to the local supermarket to do their shopping.

Then do they not have a responsibility to not exercise their power?

No, they don't. They are allowed to kick literally everyone out, and reorganize the website as their personal blog, if they want to.

And the house analogy falls apart somewhat. They are closer to a village shop selling all sorts of things. Now, they have taken a whole range of popular products off of the shelves and given reasons that many regard as inadequate. The backlash from this will not only push away those who liked those products but also a wide number of other people, and as websites like Reddit make their money completely from traffic, losing said traffic will hurt the website in the longer term.

But again, that's a practical argument, not a moral one.

You may be right, and one of the the biggest online communities will crumble without the inclusion of commenters who like to dehumanize overweight people.

But it's also possible that they will greatly benefit from pushing all of them over into another site, along with the kind of unconditional Free Speech supporters who see this as a matter of principle, then profit from the reputation of being the biggest mainstream, sane community, in contrast with voat or wherever they go, that would be getting known as a wretced hive of scum and villainy, and only attract a specific subdemographic of edgy teenagers and neckbeards as a new 4chan.

I'd really kind of like to point out that those demographics you seem to abhor are the ones who tend to drive the most content creation and traffic. So, yes it probably would be a loss.

However I see that a lot of people are more angry about how Reddit has handled all of this than who was banned, and if it's a significant enough number of people to melt the Voat servers and sit on the front of /r/all and reddit's front page then there are obviously a good number of them.

 

[Olas]

Eh, I'm fine with it. Free speech is great and all but online communities like that, even if they don't actively go out and harass people, can create a festering echo chamber of horrible mindsets that could lead people to harass others on their own.

Is it censorship? I don't know. Censorship has become such a toxic word that merely labeling something with it seems to count as an argument for why it's bad. Explain to me how the world world would be a better place if that subreddit were allowed to exist.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

And the house analogy falls apart somewhat. They are closer to a village shop selling all sorts of things. Now, they have taken a whole range of popular products off of the shelves and given reasons that many regard as inadequate. The backlash from this will not only push away those who liked those products but also a wide number of other people, and as websites like Reddit make their money completely from traffic, losing said traffic will hurt the website in the longer term.

If it's a village shop then everyone will keep going there no matter what. It's a village, there's only one shop.

Or someone will make a new shop, or they will start going into town or to the local supermarket to do their shopping.

Then do they not have a responsibility to not exercise their power?

No, they don't. They are allowed to kick literally everyone out, and reorganize the website as their personal blog, if they want to.

And the house analogy falls apart somewhat. They are closer to a village shop selling all sorts of things. Now, they have taken a whole range of popular products off of the shelves and given reasons that many regard as inadequate. The backlash from this will not only push away those who liked those products but also a wide number of other people, and as websites like Reddit make their money completely from traffic, losing said traffic will hurt the website in the longer term.

But again, that's a practical argument, not a moral one.

You may be right, and one of the the biggest online communities will crumble without the inclusion of commenters who like to dehumanize overweight people.

But it's also possible that they will greatly benefit from pushing all of them over into another site, along with the kind of unconditional Free Speech supporters who see this as a matter of principle, then profit from the reputation of being the biggest mainstream, sane community, in contrast with voat or wherever they go, that would be getting known as a wretced hive of scum and villainy, and only attract a specific subdemographic of edgy teenagers and neckbeards as a new 4chan.

I'd really kind of like to point out that those demographics you seem to abhor are the ones who tend to drive the most content creation and traffic. So, yes it probably would be a loss.

However I see that a lot of people are more angry about how Reddit has handled all of this than who was banned, and if it's a significant enough number of people to melt the Voat servers and sit on the front of /r/all and reddit's front page then there are obviously a good number of them.

How do you come to the conclusion that they tend to drive the most content creation and traffic? Personally I think the pro free speech no matter what people tend to inflate their importance a bit.

 

[Alterego-X]

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.

For the record, this is not true.

This [https://archive.is/5LxLK] is what r/whalewatching looked like before the ban.

The last whale-related picture was posted there two years ago, and all of it's current mods were people who were simultanously squatting on hundreds of non-used subs including r/racismplus, r/hitlerjerk, r/RapeWorthy_Feminists, and so on.

 

[Fallow]

Here's an interesting post from the owner of r/koans. It seems to contradict the official Reddit post from earlier. Make of it what you will.

https://archive.is/Ggo5O