"And this time, Reddit responded by banning links to Gawker..."
"CrayDrygu, That would be a great argument if r/politics wasn't one of the default subreddits."
"Sell me on Reddit, somebody. Make me a believer."
amuseDetachment:"They're one quick website away from someone on r/shitredditsays creating an alternative to Reddit and then the moment they have better content, Reddit begins to see a mass exodus of users"
amuseDetachment:"And reddit was a clone of Digg. You could probably independently code reddit in a weekend anyway (scaling it on the other hand, may take two months if you know EXACTLY what you're doing). Alternative-chans are largely just a way for people to share loli, they post no threat to 4chan. An alternate reddit that came about would be more like Digg->reddit, a massive shift of users because that's where the quality content was."
hellojed:"Is it a coincidence that the reddit mascot looks like Kuybey from magica madoka?"
I consider the freedom to practice anonymous Internet speech more important [...]
amuseDetachment:"My point of people breaking off is about people getting disaffected with Reddit's racism/mysoginy/pedophilia/rapey-ness."
And you're going where exactly with this?
I think what's at stake here is whether or not taking pictures of women and / or underage girls without their consent, and organising those pictures for people to jack off to, is a justifiable subject for investigative journalism.
It’s worth noting that–despite what was incorrectly reported in Politico–this is not a statement from Reddit administrators or officials, but instead from a Reddit moderator. Reddit moderators are volunteers and do not formally represent or speak for the website.
“Moderators are free to moderate their subreddits as they see fit,” Reddit’s general manager Erik Martin told Betabeat by email. “They can ban all usernames that start with the letter g if they want.”
“The statement is from moderators, who are volunteers,” he added, while declining to elaborate on Reddit’s official stance on the move.
Recently, r/creepshots has been at the nexus of much contention between the two websites. Just yesterday, Jezebel ran a feature about the Tumblr “Predditors,” run by a 25-year-old female Redditor, which publishes the personal information of those who post to the controversial subreddit.
“I think it’s cute how Reddit’s CreepShots apologists/Men’s Right’s activists/etc. think we care if they stop linking to us. And also indicative of their hypocritical obsession with privacy and control,” Katie J.M. Baker, the Jezebel author behind the r/creepshots post, told Betabeat by Gchat. “It’s okay for anonymous Redditors to post upskirt photo after upskirt photo, but a huge violation of privacy for a journalist to report on the men who post them? How does that make any sense? Plus, the information on Predditors (which is temporarily down) wasn’t illegal–or difficult–for my source to track down.”
Tumblr has since shut down Predditors. (We’ve reached out to Tumblr asking why Predditors has been shut down and will update when we know more.) A new thread on Reddit alleges that someone whose information was published on Predditors was violently attacked last night, but there is so far no substantial proof corroborating that claim.
Is anonymity an essential component of the freedom of speech?
The question here is, to what extent does someone have the right to use their pseudo- or anonymity to do anything they choose?
If their behavior is legal - as seems to have been generally conceded - an unlimited extent.
And then when people complain about those pictures, or take action around it, or decide that creepy dudes who take pictures of women in public and post them on the Internet to get all hubba-hubba should have a little limelight themselves, the only defense is… "but all the public information about me available on the Internet is actually private!" Or as one subredditor—their PARAKEET ENTHUSIAST BOARD person—put it: "Please don't take reddit outside of reddit." I mean hello, Al Gore invented the Internet, not Reddit, so they must be two separate places.
First you should find out: WHERE ARE YOU RIGHT NOW.
1. Do you see the words "Microsoft Word" anywhere on the screen you're typing in? Then you are not on the Internet. (Microsoft Word is a program that old people use to type things that then don't end up on the Internet.)
2. Is your computer turned off? Then you are not on the Internet.
6. Are you texting? Not sure what that is.
7. CAN IT BE UPVOTED? BEWARE, YOU ARE DEFINITELY ON "THE INTERNET."
Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit knowingly videotaping, photographing, filming, recording by any means, or broadcasting an image of a private area of an individual, without that individual's consent, under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. (Defines a "private area" as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an individual.) Makes such prohibition inapplicable to lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity
a Hobbesian state of nature.
hobbes was a royalist :(
Reddit's lack of rules creates a State of Nature that doesn't help anyone.
isn't the concept of the "state of nature" flawed
I asked "are you a VICTIM of theft, and if so, when did you BECOME a victim". Please answer the question I actually asked.
What constitutes a "Creepshot".
Creepshots are CANDID. If a person is posing for and/or aware that a picture is being taken, then it ceases to be candid and thus is no longer a creepshot. A creepshot captures the natural, raw sexiness of the subject without their vain attempts at putting on a show for the camera. That is the essence of the creepshot, that is what makes a true creepshot worth the effort and that is why this subreddit exists.
Invasion of privacy by photography. Establishes the crime of invasion of privacy by photography, a Class A misdemeanor. Provides that the crime is committed if a person, with the intent to: (1) gratify the person's sexual desires; (2) humiliate or embarrass the victim; or (3) publish, transmit, or disseminate the photograph; surreptitiously photographs the private area of an individual under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that the individual's private area would not be visible to the public. Increases the penalty to a Class D felony if the person knowingly or intentionally publishes, transmits, or otherwise disseminates the photograph.
People get off on thoughts of the taboo. It is wrong to rape, molest, kill, etc. yes, but is it wrong to masturbate to thoughts and images of those things? If you masturbate to those ideas, does that mean you really want to do those things in real life? There's real crimes and then there are thought crimes...
putting a kibosh on using 'neckbeard' to describe the jerks
I'm also in love with /r/SRS. I hate bullies
in that men don't really have to worry about getting sexually harassed
My point is that the desire behind the demand for such material is not the same as creating the material. You can criminalize the latter, but can you criminalize having bad thoughts? The wankers are being considered just as evil as those providing the wank fodder, for the fact of the wanking and nothing else. Their wanking is the demand, driving this whole thing, right? The fact they get off on "upskirt", an ancient fetish totally based on non-consensuality, is all the proof many need to assume every such wanker is a potential rapist and molester.
I don't know about that, XMLicious. Plenty of women are into BDSM and rape play, but I'm sure few if any of them actually want to be raped.
And people avidly pouring over hip hop lyrics about crime will commit crimes
and kids playing violent video games will be violent
and people who get off on non-consensual porn will go out and rape. It just makes sense!
For the record, I think mainstream culture is rapey enough and needs to be confronted directly. Policing people's thoughts can't be done.
That's always been an incredibly specious argument to me
What's difficult is human desire...the bad thoughts...
[Adrian] Chen did not in any way blackmail me into deleting my account. In fact, he specifically said deleting my account would have no effect on his decision to publish.
To end with a classic, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
... this freedom of expression there ...
Not long ago some steps had to be taken to limit the nature of certain posts that reddit deemed inappropriate. Some of the subjects that were banned were quite disturbing. How was this decision made (I realize it was before you became CEO) and will drawing that balance between user freedom and appropriate content be a difficult task?
Yeah, it was before my time. reddit strives to be a neutral communications platform like email or twitter, so we don’t make decisions like that from an editorial mindset, but rather based on whether they interfere with our operational ability to run the site. For instance, even the SOPA blackout was actually based on that – many people have the impression that it was a “protest” move, but it was also strongly motivated by the very practical concern that SOPA really did threaten the ability of reddit to operate.
So what if reddit removes some gawker links for a while?
We make the decision not on the basis of savory-ness or moral judgement. We make the decision on the basis of our pragmatic ability to run the site efficiently, with a bias towards freedom of expression.
removing /r/jailbait was not done due to a moral judgment, but because the consequences of allowing it to continue prompted other events external to reddit that threatened the existence of the site.
"Jailbait" was for a time the second biggest search term bringing traffic to Reddit, after "Reddit."
Even before I published this article, Reddit had already exploded in outrage. (Gawker sites are now banned from over 60 subreddits, and some pissed off user has signed me up for approximately two dozen mailing lists.) The irony of being upset that a noted custodian of "creepshots" is getting some unwanted attention himself is obvious. Jailbait defenders would often argue that if 14-year-olds didn't want their bikini pictures to be posted to Reddit, they should not have taken them and uploaded them to their Facebook accounts in the first place. If Brutsch did not want his employers to know that he had become a minor internet celebrity through spending hours every day posting photos of 14-year-olds in bikinis to thousands of people on the internet, he should have stuck to posting cat videos.
"Those Historically Disenfranchised" fight against the shitty historical social ills of "THE MAN"
One should never put anything online that you wouldn't want on the front page of the New York Times.
if the Good Guys won here, why does it feel so gross no matter how hard i try to deny it to myself
[solidwhetstone] @admins- is banning srs an option? you seem to not be addressing that option
[ManWithoutModem] @admins- is banning srs an option? you seem to not be addressing that option
[MobileFalc0n] Solidwhetstone: even if it is, I feel like it's not something they're going to discuss in an irc channel
[solidwhetstone] @mobilefalc0n i don't care if they give me some bullshit political answer- even a nice 'we're considering all options' would be nice
[@chromakode] of course we're considering all options, silly :P
[ManWithoutModem] So admins, would you say that SRS has not attacked the structural integrity of the greater reddit community?
[@chromakode] the reason we're not discussing SRS is because you are completely derailing this discussion with it.
[@chromakode] we are trying to address your very real concerns about being doxed and your PI on reddit
[@chromakode] they are separate issues
CHAPTER 21. SEXUAL OFFENSES [...]
Sec. 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING. [...]
(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records,
broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location
that is not a bathroom or private dressing room:
(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
[... part 2 is basically the same for in bathrooms/dressing rooms ...]
(3) knowing the character and content of the photograph, recording,
broadcast, or transmission, promotes a photograph, recording,
broadcast, or transmission described by Subdivision (1) or (2).
(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
This will go down in history as the only worthwhile thing Gawker ever did.
Greedy, vulgar, superficial, and generally amoral as Gawker is, they do have their moments.
lord knows all websites have their own problems (Gawker media empire, I'm looking directly at you),
But you ahhhhhh, darling, you ahhhhh in that chair.
It would be nice for those of us who like pseudonymous online speech because we want to read anarchists and satanists and perverts and dope fiends in the raw didn't have individuals such as violentacrez / MB as one of our poster boys.
This is a great opportunity for savvy mods to start their own microbusiness running "curated" link list/discussion sites.
Chen has absolutely nothing to do with creepshots and is off busy doxxing people on his shitlist like the twit he is.
Gawker was blacklisted in retaliation for Jezebel shining a massive fucking spotlight on the verified and unverified personal details of people on the Internet.
Because people are stupid when they're in a mob? Because they shut off all critical thinking when told X person is a pedo or something else that's WSPTOTC?
The VA/Chen fiasco was a sideshow and people are trying to make it into the story.
What about the people being doxxed on the tumblr?
I think you're getting thoroughly confused between the global ban during the /r/jailbreak fiasco a year ago when Chen was on his mindless trashing crusade and the current moderators banning Gawker links in individual subreddits.
Reddit has a blanket ban on posting personal information. Full stop. This protects vulnerable people as well as a shelter for scoundrels.
You can get a remedy in the courts but it's hard to unsully a reputation from the pedo label.
Two wrongs most definitely don't make a right about it in this situation.
The problem is that Reddit, very wisely, doesn't want to be judge, jury and executioner on content.
Better to ignore the whole hornet's nest entirely until the PR is too much to bear.
There'll be a change in policy within the next three days because of the public pressure, the rules will be updated
"Mods are still free to do what they want in their subreddits."
I kinda feel like reddit is the last gasp of the free and open Internet
The implication is that privacy resides in your name, not in your body. If you’re a man with the luxury to think this way, your body is understood as a sort of irrelevant accessory to your name, the thing that really matters. An invasion of privacy isn’t interpreted as a literal invasion. Although they plainly are, men’s bodies aren’t understood as being capable of being penetrated. People with this mentality don’t see a photograph as an invasion of privacy because they don’t experience the image of their bodies as being connected to the privacy that is capable of being violated. Of the genders, one is overwhelmingly more likely to think this way and to conclude—astonishingly—that having a username connected to an actual name is an invasion of privacy whereas a photograph of someone is not.
(b) The transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out by an automatic technical process [512(a)(2)];
(c) The Internet user, not the service provider, must select the origination and destination points of the communication [512(a)(3) and 512(k)(1)(A)];
(e) The service provider must not modify the communication selected by the Internet user [512(a)(5)];
Scaling a business on the back of that much volunteer labor is very, very difficult to sustain. It can also put you in a place where the volunteers actually have much, much more leverage over your business than you do.
I think that may be the position that Reddit finds themselves in today, though I could obviously be wrong. I wonder what direction they will end up going in over the next year or two.
There is sort of a perverse curiosity I get when reading this thread, wondering whether the attitude would be the same if a woman who posted politically-sensitive material went to a meetup and later got outed, followed by real-world harassment and threats.
But the majority seem to have an incredibly naive view about what happens when you start allowing or disallowing things based on opinions and social acceptability.
Immune systems are a hassle, and can sometimes attack healthy organs.
Show me how to moderate based on social disapproval without banning the Tibetan-culture newsgroup
What I saw of the drama a couple days ago (like I said, I took a break) was that moderators of subreddits were deciding, on their own initiative, to ban links to Gawker sites. The overarching policy of reddit is that subreddit moderators have the power to do that within their subreddits.
Surely that is an obvious Id response rather than Super Ego