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

[mecegirl]

Why do people only freak out about "free speech" on the internet. Folk will rally for FPH on reddit but no one gives a damn if Food Network magazine doesn't print articles about sports cars. How is that not the same thing? Publications and websites choose what they will or will not host all the time. If someone wanted to be a content creator for this website, but wanted to make videos about 1950's architecture, and the idea was turned down, no one here would shed a tear. Only if so called anti sjw content would be turned down would anyone care. And why? A website is allowed to pick and choose what they will host, full stop. Some internet savvy person will just have to create their own website for folks to rag on fat people on. I'm not saying they are as bad as Stormfront...but Stormfront has a website, their own website. No one has tried to take their website down or off Google listings in the U.S. Their freedom of speech is protected. So FPH can do the same thing.

 

[Zontar]

Why do people only freak out about "free speech" on the internet. Folk will rally for FPH on reddit but no one gives a damn if Food Network magazine doesn't print articles about sports cars. How is that not the same thing?

Because both reddit and the internet as a whole was built from the ground up as a bastion of free speech and the propagation and discussion of ideas, thoughts and anything else people could think of so long as it wasn't illegal. A magazine, on the other hand, is not. That's like asking why ABC not advertising R rated movies during prime time is not considered the same as YouTube removing all of the videos which Google feels shouldn't be there, but don't brake any laws or rules of the site. It's a false equivalence of the highest order.

 

[Zeljkia the Orc]

All I see from Reddit banning only a handful of subs, even a sub for whale watching, actual whale watching, as in being on a boat and looking at whales (granted though, it came back up).

So I guess Reddit is a-okay with subs like Coontown, SRS, Ghazi, and cutedeadgirls.

Good to know Reddit is a bunch of sickos and racists still. But hey, now people like Boogie wont be harassed, so that's a good thing.

(shhh, it's not like those people from those banned subs will just go other places and keep their harassment going)

Captcha: Hear me roar! would a "dook dook" suffice?

 

[NiPah]

Why do people only freak out about "free speech" on the internet. Folk will rally for FPH on reddit but no one gives a damn if Food Network magazine doesn't print articles about sports cars. How is that not the same thing? Publications and websites choose what they will or will not host all the time. If someone wanted to be a content creator for this website, but wanted to make videos about 1950's architecture, and the idea was turned down, no one here would shed a tear. Only if so called anti sjw content would be turned down would anyone care. And why? A website is allowed to pick and choose what they will host, full stop. Some internet savvy person will just have to create their own website for folks to rag on fat people on. I'm not saying they are as bad as Stormfront...but Stormfront has a website, their own website. No one has tried to take their website down or off Google listings in the U.S. Their freedom of speech is protected. So FPH can do the same thing.

From what I've read it's not that people are angry over reddit censoring free speech, but the perception that their admins say they want open discussion while then going and closing select pages they disagree with.
Now it does seem like the reason reddit closed FPS was because the mods were allowing harassment under their watch and not doing enough to stop it, in particular harassment of admins of a website imagur which works closely with reddit, an understandable reason.
Im not saying those complaining aren't at fault, but outside of a few who misunderstand what free speech is, the vast majority of people who bring it up are those who use it as a tool to show how stupid those who are complaining are, yes most understand websites have total control and a right to filter and edit everything on their site, but the issue some have is the (perceived) reason why a website filters its content.

If food network did not carry a piece on cooking fried chicken because it wanted to focus on healthy options then most would be ok, if they did the same because they don't want black people to watch then most would be angry, both are the same outcome but it shows the reason behind an action can make people angry.

 

[runic knight]

Why do people only freak out about "free speech" on the internet. Folk will rally for FPH on reddit but no one gives a damn if Food Network magazine doesn't print articles about sports cars. How is that not the same thing?

Because both reddit and the internet as a whole was built from the ground up as a bastion of free speech and the propagation and discussion of ideas, thoughts and anything else people could think of so long as it wasn't illegal. A magazine, on the other hand, is not. That's like asking why ABC not advertising R rated movies during prime time is not considered the same as YouTube removing all of the videos which Google feels shouldn't be there, but don't brake any laws or rules of the site. It's a false equivalence of the highest order.

Also worth noting that the complaints stem from a sudden change and disparate application of in enforcing policy. The example they gave is something established and defined towards a certain topic getting shit for not talking about a different one, where the reality of the situation is an established and accepted bunch of groups, built on top of the very idea of free speech mind you, were suddenly nuked in a rather sudden and inconsistent manner.

Better example might be asking yourself if the food network started banned any show relating to unhealthy foods, claim it is because obesity in America, and see how people react to that. Moral judgement enforced unevenly in a place where such totalitarian behavior was formly denied.

 

[runic knight]

Actual harassment isn't hard to archive when one finds it. Why would you believe it without seeing any?

Ocaam's Razor. Whats more likely, a conspiracy to make Reddit an SJW hugbox that somehow doesn't have a problem with subreddits dedicated to the same thing, just under a different name (eg: Shit Niggers Say was shut down, but Coontowm, among others, still persists) or perhaps that the five subs in question that are all mean-spirited in natured violated some new rules? Besides, on FPH they were posting personal details about imgur staff. Thats a pretty good basis to shut them down.

You apply the razor in situations where one cannot be sure, not when one party claims something but is light on evidence.

And this is one of those situations. After all, "harassment" on the internet, as a definition, nowadays has been stretched wider than a fisherman's epic catch of the century that they conveniently left in the ocean. I can right now link screencaps of people just generally being assholes, making statements that could be taken as threats, and just outright making threats and there will be more than just one or two people who will say that that isn't harassment. There are people here who will say that posting somebody's personal information on a message and implicitly encouraging people to go use this personal information to bother people is not harassment. Thats literally what Fat People Hate was doing.

And countless other subreddits that people can point to as well. Hell, off the top of my head, gamerghazi was a notorious hub of that sort of shit, as is a number of the ones listed earlier in the thread like Coontown. As others have pointed out, many times now, it isn't that they were enforcing a policy, the problem was that it was a nuclear response to individuals accused of doing wrong, that it was an unevenly applied nuclear response as not every subreddit guilty of that behavior got nuked, and that the site itself grew based upon the idea of free speech and the sudden nuking of subreddits like that seems to spit in the face of that sort of foundation.

The first thing you'd have to demonstrate for your claim to have any standing is that the harassment was subreddit-wide, the standard channels were reached out to deal with it and that still nothing was done. Considering both the simultaneous nature of the closings and the general surprise of them to the userbase though, I kinda doubt that was the case. Since it most likely was not, we now have a situation where some subreddits are treated more harshly then others for no discernible reason (since the stated one is inconsistent with the actions seen), which not surprisingly is a bit part of the fuel driving the backlash against that decision.

Also I imagine part of it was based on the general logical flaw of damning a group for the actions of a select few. People don't like seeing that, even applied to assholes. It tends to continue to happen over and over if not called out after all.

Finally, I find it sort of funny to hear complaint about the definition of harassment. Considering the definition itself has been used to describe anything from open threats to simply saying "I don't agree", not surprised it is so hard to pin down the meaning. But I am willing to bet the definition there is far far more rarely denied to actual examples of aggressive intimidation or attacks compared to the numerous times the word has been used to describe things it isn't such as disagreement or insult. Sadly though, that is what happens when a word is used so freely for the emotional impact it has, the word simply loses the impact and degenerates, causing the definition to be more and more loose. If you really want the word to have real meaning again, I'd suggest holding people accountable when they misuse it or use it for cheap emotional apeals. Words have meanings, but only if the meaning is consistent. Otherwise, well, you see what happens. No one listens to the boy who cries harassment anymore.

As for the one your refer to who say that "posting somebody's personal information on a message and implicitly encouraging people to go use this personal information to bother people is not harassment", I am curious. Was that an honest claim being made there? I can't think of anyone who'd say that wasn't harassment, if indeed that was the proper description to a given situation. Was it just a misrepresentation of other opinions or arguments from other topics shoehorned into this one to try to demonstrate the point? Seems a bit of a reach for that intent. Was it just a completely manufactured claim for hyperbole sake? Sort of an odd claim to make if so. I am sort of curious though who you are referencing, as that sound very damning of them.

captcha: spread the net

Funny, though I think arguing a more narrow definition of the term, preferably something that is actually relevant to how it applies in legal terms and most common usage for the last couple centuries would actually shrink that net a little.

 

[SecondPrize]

Actual harassment isn't hard to archive when one finds it. Why would you believe it without seeing any?

Ocaam's Razor. Whats more likely, a conspiracy to make Reddit an SJW hugbox that somehow doesn't have a problem with subreddits dedicated to the same thing, just under a different name (eg: Shit Niggers Say was shut down, but Coontowm, among others, still persists) or perhaps that the five subs in question that are all mean-spirited in natured violated some new rules? Besides, on FPH they were posting personal details about imgur staff. Thats a pretty good basis to shut them down.

You apply the razor in situations where one cannot be sure, not when one party claims something but is light on evidence.

And this is one of those situations. After all, "harassment" on the internet, as a definition, nowadays has been stretched wider than a fisherman's epic catch of the century that they conveniently left in the ocean. I can right now link screencaps of people just generally being assholes, making statements that could be taken as threats, and just outright making threats and there will be more than just one or two people who will say that that isn't harassment. There are people here who will say that posting somebody's personal information on a message and implicitly encouraging people to go use this personal information to bother people is not harassment. Thats literally what Fat People Hate was doing.

If that's what they were doing then it's simple matter to post archives of it.

 

[mecegirl]

Why do people only freak out about "free speech" on the internet. Folk will rally for FPH on reddit but no one gives a damn if Food Network magazine doesn't print articles about sports cars. How is that not the same thing? Publications and websites choose what they will or will not host all the time. If someone wanted to be a content creator for this website, but wanted to make videos about 1950's architecture, and the idea was turned down, no one here would shed a tear. Only if so called anti sjw content would be turned down would anyone care. And why? A website is allowed to pick and choose what they will host, full stop. Some internet savvy person will just have to create their own website for folks to rag on fat people on. I'm not saying they are as bad as Stormfront...but Stormfront has a website, their own website. No one has tried to take their website down or off Google listings in the U.S. Their freedom of speech is protected. So FPH can do the same thing.

From what I've read it's not that people are angry over reddit censoring free speech, but the perception that their admins say they want open discussion while then going and closing select pages they disagree with.
Now it does seem like the reason reddit closed FPS was because the mods were allowing harassment under their watch and not doing enough to stop it, in particular harassment of admins of a website imagur which works closely with reddit, an understandable reason.
Im not saying those complaining aren't at fault, but outside of a few who misunderstand what free speech is, the vast majority of people who bring it up are those who use it as a tool to show how stupid those who are complaining are, yes most understand websites have total control and a right to filter and edit everything on their site, but the issue some have is the (perceived) reason why a website filters its content.

If food network did not carry a piece on cooking fried chicken because it wanted to focus on healthy options then most would be ok, if they did the same because they don't want black people to watch then most would be angry, both are the same outcome but it shows the reason behind an action can make people angry.

Comparing the shut down of a site that picks on fat people for supposed harassment, to someone not running an article because of racism, is a bit of a stretch because the situations are not equal. They say they have rules against harassment, and FPH was accused of breaking those rules, which means that the Reddit admins did not go back on their word.

How long has Reddit had an anti harassment stance? It if was a rule specifically made as an excuse to get rid of FPH then I'd understand. Folks could even argue, and show proof that, other boards routinely break this rule and should be shut down as well. But if reddit has had this anti harassment rule for a long time then technically Reddit has never had an environment that promoted "open discussion" because they had an anti harassment rule which would limit what people could discuss on their website.

 

[Pax Romana]

Everything is driven by money so I'm assuming that perhaps, by banning certain things Ellen Pao feels that maybe Reddit will be more attractive to advertisers which is how they make money. I am sure it is not just her and she has some board or committee who approved it. It will serve the usual sort who love their save spaces, turn it into some sort of Tumblr thing. I don't care anyway I never bothered with Reddit.

She is a deplorable woman in any case who was caught plainly playing her sexism card with bullshit claims to make money to bail out her in debt husband who likes to play his racism card. She also took out salary negotiations to help the poor poor women who can't negotiate just so no one would be able to get better salary, improving her bottom line. Hiding her own self interests behind her social justice bollocks as all the smart ones do. So I don't think anything she does is motivated by virtue or the common good.

Also hilarious how they banned a sub Reddit whalewatching that was about actual whales that live in the sea.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

Hating fat people might be wrong, but I have no problem hating stupid people. That is what I always thought "fat shaming" was supposed to be. It should focus on mocking people for saying/thinking stupid things like metabolism, genetics, thyroid, "My condishuns!", etc.

I never even knew about /r/fatepeoplehate, but this whole ordeal led to me finding out about /r/fatlogic. That reddit is more in line with what I think "fat shaming" should be. I hope that one doesn't get banned.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Also hilarious how they banned a sub Reddit whalewatching that was about actual whales that live in the sea.

Well, it was... a couple years ago before going defunct. Then FPH got banned (and rightly so) and it got taken over.

 

[AgedGrunt]

Wait, I'm actually curious now, what did Tesla do to harm the Feelz Brigade? I admit I don't know a huge amount beyond the normal things you pick up, but how is he politically controversial?

I'll rephrase: people were posting articles about Tesla Motors in r/technology, and they were popular. A Reddit mod went ahead and banned that subject material, and when contested claimed that electric cars were not different enough from petrol cars to qualify them under that subreddit as "technology".

My conjecture is that Tesla Motors itself is politically controversial, and has dealt with a lot of discrimination and harassment to keep it from gaining popularity. Probably not why it happened on Reddit, though, considering how FUBAR r/technology became.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Why do people only freak out about "free speech" on the internet. Folk will rally for FPH on reddit but no one gives a damn if Food Network magazine doesn't print articles about sports cars. How is that not the same thing?

Because both reddit and the internet as a whole was built from the ground up as a bastion of free speech and the propagation and discussion of ideas, thoughts and anything else people could think of so long as it wasn't illegal. A magazine, on the other hand, is not. That's like asking why ABC not advertising R rated movies during prime time is not considered the same as YouTube removing all of the videos which Google feels shouldn't be there, but don't brake any laws or rules of the site. It's a false equivalence of the highest order.

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

All I see from Reddit banning only a handful of subs, even a sub for whale watching, actual whale watching, as in being on a boat and looking at whales (granted though, it came back up).

So I guess Reddit is a-okay with subs like Coontown, SRS, Ghazi, and cutedeadgirls.

Good to know Reddit is a bunch of sickos and racists still. But hey, now people like Boogie wont be harassed, so that's a good thing.

(shhh, it's not like those people from those banned subs will just go other places and keep their harassment going)

Captcha: Hear me roar! would a "dook dook" suffice?

Did you just believe whoever told you about the whale watching one without much investigation? From what I've seen the whale watching posts were 2 years old and the very trustworthy informant left out the newer posts. I wonder if you can guess what those were like.

 

[Zontar]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

Weather intended or not (and given how it was intended as a means for universities to communicate with each other an grew from there when merged with other networks such as DARPA, that's definitely one of its main foundations if not the single largest) during the 90s and early 2000s that is exactly what it was, with no possibility of being interpreted otherwise. It has been, if not in intent, then simply in deed, a bastion of free speech and the propagation and discussion of ideas.

Reddit, on top of that, has explicitly been about freedom of speech since its foundation, and even now continued to claim to be as such, even if recent events show that it is no longer the case.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

Weather intended or not (and given how it was intended as a means for universities to communicate with each other an grew from there when merged with other networks such as DARPA, that's definitely one of its main foundations if not the single largest) during the 90s and early 2000s that is exactly what it was, with no possibility of being interpreted otherwise. It has been, if not in intent, then simply in deed, a bastion of free speech and the propagation and discussion of ideas.

Reddit, on top of that, has explicitly been about freedom of speech since its foundation, and even now continued to claim to be as such, even if recent events show that it is no longer the case.

If not intended then it is foolish of them to be surprised if the Internet does not remain as such. Not to mention their idea of almost absolute free speech is hardly an ideal shared by all.

Also the CEO said they are not trying to be an absolute free-speech platform. Maybe they were before but it does not seem that they are claiming to be such.

 

[Zontar]

[

If not intended then it is foolish of them to be surprised if the Internet does not remain as such. Not to mention their idea of almost absolute free speech is hardly an ideal shared by all.

Also the CEO said they are not trying to be an absolute free-speech platform. Maybe they were before but it does not seem that they are claiming to be such.

No one is claiming that the internet is about absolute free speech, to say so is lunacy. Being a place where it is the foundation of what has been built, however, that the internet very much is. It is because of that freedom that the internet became an instrumental part of modern society, and it is for this reason that Reddit became one of the biggest sites on the web. They are, in the long run, shooting themselves in the foot revenue wise. This isn't going to attract people, and is going to repel others who otherwise would have stayed.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

reddit is a pretty open platform and free speech place, but there are a few rules:

Don't spam.

Don't ask for votes or engage in vote manipulation.

Don't post personal information.

No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors.

Don't break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of the site.

Note: 'free speech place'.

Also: to quote the place which shouldn't be named:

There's a canard that we don't understand the right to free speech - how its just a limitation placed on government action. It doesn't obligate Reddit, Kotaku, or whoever to give us space on their platform. It's not that we fail to understand this distinction - we reject it. Free speech is not just a legal right, but a moral right, and an ideal about how society should function. People should debate challenging ideas rather than hiding from them. The recent censorship on Reddit is couched in the rhetoric of "safety", echoing the campus usage of the term, where to be unsafe means to be criticized. This stands in proper Orwellian style in total contrast to being actually physically threatened.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

[

If not intended then it is foolish of them to be surprised if the Internet does not remain as such. Not to mention their idea of almost absolute free speech is hardly an ideal shared by all.

Also the CEO said they are not trying to be an absolute free-speech platform. Maybe they were before but it does not seem that they are claiming to be such.

No one is claiming that the internet is about absolute free speech, to say so is lunacy. Being a place where it is the foundation of what has been built, however, that the internet very much is. It is because of that freedom that the internet became an instrumental part of modern society, and it is for this reason that Reddit became one of the biggest sites on the web. They are, in the long run, shooting themselves in the foot revenue wise. This isn't going to attract people, and is going to repel others who otherwise would have stayed.

I am skeptical of an off the cuff analysis of what made the Internet successful and so important. I rather think easy communication is valuable itself.