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

[Areloch]

then Whale Watching was done pre-emptively before it turned into a sub for the refugees to do the exact same thing they did on the other two. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.876768-Reddit-Bans-Subreddits-about-Making-Fun-of-Fat-People-Neogaf-and-others?page=7#22062158]

This seems like it should raise questions though, if preemptively blowing out subreddits when the refugees of blown-out subreddits conglomerate there is what was indeed happening.

What if those people mass-flood into a completely innocuous subreddit and the moderators can't keep up? Does the subreddit deserve deletion then?

Even if that's unlikely, if the problem was that the unpleasant subreddits were deleted because they were stepping out of their circle and harassing others, then destroying another subreddit they moved to before they could violate the same rules seems to be a REALLY drastic step. Seems like the more rational move would be to ban the users that are actually causing the harassment, rather than nuke any given subreddit they migrate to?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

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.

If "Don't be a dick" isn't a universal rule, it damn well should be.

 

[Areloch]

What if those people mass-flood into a completely innocuous subreddit and the moderators can't keep up? Does the subreddit deserve deletion then?

Well if people are flooding into subreddits where they don't belong and changing the nature of the board at a rate which the moderators can't keep pace, does that not require intervention on behalf of the site administration? Thats essentially one of the reasons why it is there, after all. r/FatPeopleHate wasn't closed because people were violating the subreddit's rules, it was closed because it was violating reddit's rules. r/WhaleWatching will probably return in a few weeks after people have moved on, unless of course there's no legitimate interest in the sub's return in the first place (which is probably the case, as the last post was from two years ago. I'd personally archive it and move on).

Even if that's unlikely, if the problem was that the unpleasant subreddits were deleted because they were stepping out of their circle and harassing others, then destroying another subreddit they moved to before they could violate the same rules seems to be a REALLY drastic step. Seems like the more rational move would be to ban the users that are actually causing the harassment, rather than nuke any given subreddit they migrate to?

Don't have to nuke the subreddit, just have to stop them from posting until they get bored. And again, you set this standard yourself "mass-flood into a completely innocuous subreddit and the moderators can't keep up" - how, in a situation like that, would it be possible to moderate individuals, if by definition its a situation where there's too many people to keep up with?

Well, I admit, I don't really USE reddit. I peruse a few boards, but I don't personally reddit. So I'm unsure of the relative scale of things. But according to other posters, FPH had something like 5,000 subscribers?

Take this forum, for example. If 5,000 people showed up and started spamming garbage threads and making an utter mess of things, either in an attempt to 'claim it' or out of spite, do you think the moderation staff could keep up in real time?

Now, I hadn't realized they could un-ban the subreddits. I'd associated it more to regular forum moderation, where deleting a forum is...well, pretty permanent.
If they can merely lock it down temporarily, then that doesn't seem as extreme. I wonder if the moderators are the ones to request it, or if the administration step in to do it at their discretion. I'd feel weird about it if the latter was the case, but if it's temporary, it's not quite as bad as I'd figured.

I just dislike the notion of a group of people running a subreddit, with no problems, and then the administration catching whiff that some refugees of FPH or whatever else nuked place wandered into your subreddit and started posting junk, and before you could really do anything about it, reddit itself steps in and bans your entire subreddit.

It just feels like an overstep to me unless the subreddit itself requested it to happen.

 

[Lightspeaker]

*People commenting on a non-government owned site claiming that the owner/creators decision to remove content from site is 'censorship'/'violation of free speech'*

*I cry for the future of humanity again*

I've seen this misconception a couple of times, censorship doesn't have to be the act of a government agency, when a record label releases a "censored" version of an album they have by definition censored their own work, you can also have self censorship, company self censorship, and certainly government censorship among many many other types.

Now the cry of "violation of free speech" is another issue, most definitions define it as "the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc.", so by definition you'd have to argue that those who run Reddit community constitute a government, that's a pretty big stretch so this is indeed false.

Now stop crying for the future of humanity, if you're going to base your snarky comments off old Critical Miss comics make sure Gray and Cory got their argument correct.

Pretty much this.

It IS censorship; because it is quite literally censoring things the site doesn't like. People can argue if this is a good or bad things, but it does constitute censorship.

But it is NOT a violation of "freedom of speech"; because you don't actually have the right to freedom of speech there in the first place. Or any other forum as long as it isn't government run. Whenever I've been an admin or mod of a forum I always used to make that explicitly clear in the forum rules: this is our house and it is up to us to run it.

So in short its entirely up to the staff what they do with Reddit. And everyone has the right to support that or hate on it. But it doesn't legally violate anyone's rights to be censored on a forum, even if people think its sucks and is a scummy thing to do.

 

[maninahat]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
-Evelyn Beatrice Hall

I always found that to be a most agonizingly sanctimonious quote, regardless of how valid it might be. In this case, not valid at all; free speech does not give reddit an obligation to provide a space for assholes to be talk like assholes.

As to the subreddit being closed...well, good? Why those other unpleasant subreddits haven't been closed, I don't know. But complaining about those still being open isn't an argument in favour of re-opening the fat hate thread, its an argument in favour of closing those down too.

 

[Redryhno]

I don't care if it's censorship, I personally wouldn't allow people to hate on others based on their weight on my website.

Ah, but would you allow them to hate on others based on religion, personal politics, being a console or PC main, or even their taste/distaste of certain skin tones for sexual relationships? Because all of those have popped up here...I mean, you can argue that being overly heavy doesn't mean you deserve some sort of ridicule, but neither do any of those other things I've listed. Plus more that I've not listed that still have their subreddits open on that site despite being much more infamous for being a hive of....less than reasonable people that leave others alone.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
-Evelyn Beatrice Hall

I always found that to be a most agonizingly sanctimonious quote, regardless of how valid it might be. In this case, not valid at all; free speech does not give reddit an obligation to provide a space for assholes to be talk like assholes.

As to the subreddit being closed...well, good? Why those other unpleasant subreddits haven't been closed, I don't know. But complaining about those still being open isn't an argument in favour of re-opening the fat hate thread, its an argument in favour of closing those down too.

I think the argument is in favor of either closing down all, or not doing anything beyond what is already done there. Alot of people think that "freedom of speech" is what is SOLELY written in law, when alot of the Bill of Rights is largely considered more about the spirit of it, with FoS being that you should be allowed to say what you wish without drastic repercussions. Go ahead, ban the stupid shits that go out of their way to badger others solely because of their weight. But this is like someone complaining about people being assholes on their personal corner of the internet about a "friend" of theirs that didn't care enough to bother knowing said assholes exist until the friend began proclaiming victory over the evil oppressors.

In essence, you either use what's working now, or come up with a better plan(preferably both at the same time). This is not the better plan. This is causing the hateful(or trolls as the case may be) to spill into other (relatively) innocent subreddits and taint them by association and getting them closed down as well. Or at the very least has the potential to do so. This plan is like throwing out the bio refuse without paying attention to it landing in the piles of fresh food.

I'm really surprised nobody has linked this here yet honestly...

Spoiler

 

[Aerosteam]

I don't care if it's censorship, I personally wouldn't allow people to hate on others based on their weight on my website.

Ah, but would you allow them to hate on others based on religion, personal politics, being a console or PC main, or even their taste/distaste of certain skin tones for sexual relationships? Because all of those have popped up here...I mean, you can argue that being overly heavy doesn't mean you deserve some sort of ridicule, but neither do any of those other things I've listed. Plus more that I've not listed that still have their subreddits open on that site despite being much more infamous for being a hive of....less than reasonable people that leave others alone.

Uh... no? What?

If I were the CEO who wanted to get rid of all the morally deprived people on Reddit I'd tell them all to fuck off and go somewhere else because that stuff I disapprove of. If they want to be sexist, racist, look at pictures of dead babies or whatever, they don't have to do it on my website.

 

[Redryhno]

I don't care if it's censorship, I personally wouldn't allow people to hate on others based on their weight on my website.

Ah, but would you allow them to hate on others based on religion, personal politics, being a console or PC main, or even their taste/distaste of certain skin tones for sexual relationships? Because all of those have popped up here...I mean, you can argue that being overly heavy doesn't mean you deserve some sort of ridicule, but neither do any of those other things I've listed. Plus more that I've not listed that still have their subreddits open on that site despite being much more infamous for being a hive of....less than reasonable people that leave others alone.

Uh... no? What?

If I were the CEO who wanted to get rid of all the morally deprived people on Reddit I'd tell them all to fuck off and go somewhere else because that stuff I disapprove of. If they want to be sexist, racist, look at pictures of dead babies or whatever, they don't have to do it on my website.

I note that you took what I said to be all about racists and sexists, when I neither mentioned or implied any of that. Good going there...you have found meaning so hidden I didn't even know it was there.

Here's the thing, there's been numerous other CEOs and founders(and if I remember correctly she's just the one they're stuck with until they get an actual CEO) of reddit have said that so long as it's not directly interfereing with someone else's life and that it is legal, go right on ahead. They don't have to like what's on there, but they weren't going to do anything about it unless it actually attacked someone else. And as others have said, there's countless other subreddits that make fun of the right, the left, the poor, the rich, the underprivileged, the over-privileged, the best and worst of humanity, and yet they've been allowed to stay despite having histories of being a bunch of pricks to other subreddits.

You either get them all and say you just don't want that kind of thing on your site at once or within a few hours of each other, and don't hide behind the "harassment" narrative. Or you get rid of the users that break the rules. Or you do one of a hundred different things that could've been a better response. Don't pick and choose who gets to stay based on politics and how you don't want the site to be. Like seriously, all it's done so far is make those asshats invade other subreddits and clog it with their filth/trollshit. It's caused a rival site that was considered irrelevant two weeks ago to blow up and start actually becoming a potential threat. Not seeing the upside so far yet.

 

[maninahat]

snip

Also, like in any other internet clusterfuck the one thing is lacking. Empathy. Even in this thread it's kind of disgusting. Fuck you, people! You can take this "you, people" any way you want. If you don't think it's not directed towards you, good for you.

The reddit cesspool is quite vast and deep. Oh no! Cutedeadgirls(or something) hurt your... what exactly? Who is that subreddit hurting exactly? I'm not into it, but I can empathize. Why can't you?

Also modern definition of harassment is weird. "Internet harassment" is like rape from feminist(you know the kind I'm talking about) point of view. It's ridiculous. Is this post harassment? If you think so, sor... Fuck you!

All hail safe spaces! All hail Chairman Pao!

Likewise, I find your concept of empathy equally confusing. I would watch your mouth though, the mods tend not to like it when you tell the forums to go fuck themselves.

 

[Aerosteam]

I don't care if it's censorship, I personally wouldn't allow people to hate on others based on their weight on my website.

Ah, but would you allow them to hate on others based on religion, personal politics, being a console or PC main, or even their taste/distaste of certain skin tones for sexual relationships? Because all of those have popped up here...I mean, you can argue that being overly heavy doesn't mean you deserve some sort of ridicule, but neither do any of those other things I've listed. Plus more that I've not listed that still have their subreddits open on that site despite being much more infamous for being a hive of....less than reasonable people that leave others alone.

Uh... no? What?

If I were the CEO who wanted to get rid of all the morally deprived people on Reddit I'd tell them all to fuck off and go somewhere else because that stuff I disapprove of. If they want to be sexist, racist, look at pictures of dead babies or whatever, they don't have to do it on my website.

I note that you took what I said to be all about racists and sexists, when I neither mentioned or implied any of that. Good going there...you have found meaning so hidden I didn't even know it was there.

Here's the thing, there's been numerous other CEOs and founders(and if I remember correctly she's just the one they're stuck with until they get an actual CEO) of reddit have said that so long as it's not directly interfereing with someone else's life and that it is legal, go right on ahead. They don't have to like what's on there, but they weren't going to do anything about it unless it actually attacked someone else. And as others have said, there's countless other subreddits that make fun of the right, the left, the poor, the rich, the underprivileged, the over-privileged, the best and worst of humanity, and yet they've been allowed to stay despite having histories of being a bunch of pricks to other subreddits.

You either get them all and say you just don't want that kind of thing on your site at once or within a few hours of each other, and don't hide behind the "harassment" narrative. Or you get rid of the users that break the rules. Or you do one of a hundred different things that could've been a better response. Don't pick and choose who gets to stay based on politics and how you don't want the site to be. Like seriously, all it's done so far is make those asshats invade other subreddits and clog it with their filth/trollshit. It's caused a rival site that was considered irrelevant two weeks ago to blow up and start actually becoming a potential threat. Not seeing the upside so far yet.

Sorry if I misunderstood the point.

 

[SecondPrize]

Is not liking neogaf a sin now? Yeah, fph is a place most people don't want to go, so they don't go there. But mocking neogaf is the right thing to do.

I was simply name checking one of the banned subs. Likely the one that has people here in a twist, given the content. The "sin" the subs were banned for was apparently "harassment". The conspiracy wonks will tell you that's a lie/excuse meant to start the white-washing of Reddit to make it safe for sale, and/or a targeted SJW campaign. Keep in mind this is still a website that features subs like r/sexyabortions or r/burningchildren or r/rapingwomen, so I'm more like to believe the "harassment" explanation than the "Reddit is safe space/hugbox only now!" explanation.

Mostly I'm just laughing at the assertion that the populace of the banned subs were the only thing making Reddit "worth a damn".

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

 

[Somekindofgold]

Alright so some more information has popped up with former mods and users answering questions and telling their side of the story on places like KiA.

First, I was wrong about the size of FPH. It was the 19th most active subreddit with over 150k subs, it was a big community. But it was also unheard of for a lot of people. This is because the FPH mods were, according to these posts, fantastic at containing FPH. Strict enforcement of every reddit rule, the mods and the community were worried that they would be targeted by SRS and did not want to give them any excuse to shut them down.

Second, the infamous doxxing image. It was a composite shot of thumbnails taken from publicly available imgur images uploaded by the people freely with the phrase 'even their dogs are fat' underneath. There was no doxxing or harassment from this, it was a bitchy joke.Taking publicly available images and sources is NOT doxxing.

Third, there was no promotion of brigading or targeting people. They were mean but they never committed 'organized raids' like some people are accusing them of and any attempt to was swiftly beaten down by the mods.

All the links provided to prove they were harassing people? half of them are the 'victim' going into FPH and saying things that openly challenge the subs community. That is not random targeting or harassment, that is a moron walking into a lions den with a steak around their neck. You do not go to /pol/ and post about how great it is to be Jewish, you do not go to a subreddit named fatpeoplehate and post about why fat people are great.

Whats interesting to note is that nearly every mod involved with FPH was banned, you remember the jailbait scandal that happened a while back? not a single mod from that was banned.

This paints a picture that goes against the common story that the news and the admins are parading. In fact several of the 'facts' that even I believed are wrong, there was no doxxing of the imgur staff, that is a straight up lie because you cannot dox someone just by using a publicly available picture of them. Yes, FPH were assholes and hurt peoples feelings. But all we have are the word of the admins that they committed an act that goes against the rules, and the word of the former posters of FPH say its not true.

I dont know who you guys will believe, but its suspicious.

Also suspicious? the fact that Tess Holliday, a 'plus sized supermodel' posted these on April 5th- 6th 2015. While they are now deleted, its still interesting and I hope people do some more digging in this direction.

https://new3.fjcdn.com/pictures/Fat_a6fc49_5555254.jpg

http://web.archive.org/web/20150611044312/https:/twitter.com/tess_holliday/status/584868740921171969

I have another theory for those who werent fond of my previous one. FPH got too big, too loud and went against one too many popular celebrities, who got in contact with reddit to demand FPH be taken down. Its no secret that in todays world celebrities are the demigods of popular culture, and more importance is placed on their word than some random asshole. This demand saw the reddit admins looking for any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to get rid of FPH, and when the imgur 'doxxing' happened they put the hammer down, regardless of the fact that it wasnt doxxing (I will admit the line can be a bit hard to see, but the important distinction is publicly available=not doxxing).

I still have no idea why the other subs got hit. Maybe they also had celebrities complain against them? maybe the reddit staff decided to preemptively get rid of them before some celebrity complained about them too?

 

[Jux]

Has the Great Culling happened yet? As much as I will applaud reddit for being a little less of a cesspool by getting rid of harassers and doxxers, I still can't in good conscience frequent the site. Here's to hoping for the eradication of all the sexist, racist, transphobic, animal abuse watching, (do they have pedo 'child model' boards too?) shitty subreddits.

 

[Zacharious-khan]

Yes lets make fun of fat people in the real world as opposed to on a secluded area of reddit, they've been having it too good as of late. Besides how will the fats even know we hate them if we stay on our own subreddit and not go bother them on theirs.

 

[chikusho]

Here are some exceptions to freedom of speech in the US:

Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Other exceptions include threats, fighting words, and offensive speech.

Take your pick as to what applies to the subreddits in question, and then quit using "freedom of speech" as an argument.

 

[Dr. Crawver]

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.

Then, to put it bluntly, you don't understand freedom of speech. Regardless of what people say, they have a right to say it. I mean, sure, we may wish they wouldn't, but, the important part is allowing them to say it.

The reason for this, is because, if one ever finds themselves on the opposite side of things, and having an opinion that is unpopular, say for example, being in a fan group of a man who defends paedophilia and thinks men can't be raped, there is a freedom to have those opinions, regardless of how lowly others think of you for doing so.

It's an ideology, and I'm not going to claim to be particularly good at explaining it, but, simply, if one imagines applying the dearness they hold for having usergroups which mock other people on the forums to another subject, and then some entity tells you that's not okay any more.

Sorry to butt in, but I actually think it's you who doesn't quite understand free speech. It gives you the right to say and feel whatever you want, but does not protect you from consequences of it. For example the owner of a privately owned gathering place banning you because they find what was said disgusting. There was no free speech violations there because it was private property, where the owner has the final say (provided any consequences he decides to dole out aren't illegal themselves, like say assaulting the person).

In the same way that if someone starts yelling "******" in the middle of a family restaurant will be forced to leave, saying "Free speech" means nothing.

 

[Somekindofgold]

Here are some exceptions to freedom of speech in the US:

Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Other exceptions include threats, fighting words, and offensive speech.

Take your pick as to what applies to the subreddits in question, and then quit using "freedom of speech" as an argument.

Exept none of those happened, at least in FPH. Unless you consider laughing at publicly available photos as 'threats'.

 

[Don Incognito]

Here are some exceptions to freedom of speech in the US:

Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Other exceptions include threats, fighting words, and offensive speech.

Take your pick as to what applies to the subreddits in question, and then quit using "freedom of speech" as an argument.

Precisely zero of that applies, because the government did not take down the boards in question. The owners and operators of the website in question decided what to do with their own servers. "Freedom of speech" doesn't even enter into the discussion.

 

[AgedGrunt]

This is surprising? IIRC, some time ago it was banning articles about Tesla Motors for being in the popular r/technology subreddit (where they were widely viewed and popular). A mod claimed an electric car was no different from a normal car, but given the political controversy over Tesla, it's highly suspect.

Then there was the infamous purge of climate change skeptics from r/science. Independently (or maybe not) some Reddit mods do this with users for a living. I recall reading about a subreddit for transgendered people, and anyone who regretted transitioning and spoke about it was a target. In one specific instance, the mod assumed someone legitimate was a "TERF" troll.

Every website has to censor to control content. A Digg or Imgur can do this through voting and manipulation, but it's a lot more obvious with how Reddit is designed.

 

[chikusho]

Here are some exceptions to freedom of speech in the US:

Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Other exceptions include threats, fighting words, and offensive speech.

Take your pick as to what applies to the subreddits in question, and then quit using "freedom of speech" as an argument.

Precisely zero of that applies, because the government did not take down the boards in question. The owners and operators of the website in question decided what to do with their own servers. "Freedom of speech" doesn't even enter into the discussion.

Now, I'm legitimately curious.. "Freedom of speech" has been echoed over and over again in the backlash against reddit. Freedom of speech is irrelevant in the case, since this is not an instance of government intervention. I made a post providing further reasoning against using Freedom of Speech as an argument, government intervention notwithstanding.

And then you reply, to my post, to say that Freedom of speech does not apply to this discussion?

If you personally did not use Freedom of Speech as an argument, what was the purpose of responding to my post? If you agree with me that using said argument is wrong, why are you writing to correct me when I'm saying that using that argument is wrong?