Social Media and harassment

[telee.kom]

[allegro]

This has less to do with "feminism" and a lot more to do with the definition of "harassment" on social media.

Anybody could be charged with any kind of "harassment" on social media for any kind of topic.

For instance.

And, yes, one person's "debate" is another person's "harassment," that's always been the problem, e.g. the vaccine issue, the abortion issue, or any issue, really.

Social media is, really, just a cesspool of soapbox bullshit. Most people don't care to share ideas; both sides want to force their own ideas onto other people.

Again, this really should have been in its own thread, though, since it encompasses a whole variety of areas relating to social media and the over-reach of the courts and the definition of "harassment."

Here is an article about how Twitter handles harassment matters.

Re that reporter's ^^ comments re genuine harassment vs. how someone makes you "feel" being harassment: that is how the courts also handle things like "abuse" and "spousal abuse." If you ever sit through court hearings regarding spousal abuse relating to emotional abuse (vs. physical abuse), the accused abuser always says things like "well, it's not my problem that my words make him/her feel that way," etc. in order to shift the problem to the accuser, and that these are "just words" etc. Obviously, though, at some point, words -- combined with frequency, and the words used, and the emotional state of the person receiving those words, and the context of the words, and the venue of the words -- turn into abuse (or harassment) in the eyes of the law. The court will have to determine if the women in question could have just ignored the person, or blocked the person, or reported the person to Twitter, or changed their Twitter account, etc. In a home / spouse situation, where a spouse is financially or emotionally dependent on the abusing spouse, this isn't possible; on social media, there are ways in which we can turn this "off." Now, with obvious things like Doxxing (releasing private information online) or threatening or hate speech, this is OBVIOUS harassment punishable by law.

I'm not sure how I feel about this case (I hope an Admin splits this off so it can be its own topic, because it's an interesting one): While I don't like limited free speech TOO much, I do think that there needs to be some kind of governor on Twitter that doesn't exist, now. Like when people were harassing the shit out of Trent Reznor's then-gf / now-wife and it was HORRIBLE to watch, and they were calling that "free speech." I don't know, I think all of social media is filled with zero common sense. Like on that video, above; a kid made a game where you can punch a woman in the face? Even if you're not a "feminist," who thinks that's a good idea? What kind of parents did that kid have, raising a kid who makes a game and puts it online where you punch a woman in the face? Aren't we going back about 200 years, here? Why aren't we becoming more empathetic, more caring, more loving, instead of more evil, more hate-spewing, more argumentative, and putting a game online where you can punch a woman in the face? Isn't this more primitive, aren't we going in the wrong direction, here? Isn't social media just contributing to people "saying whatever they want" in an anonymous venue that leads to this "RIP Trolling" shit where they go on bereavement sites and poke fun at the dead people's relatives ("Hey, your daughter's missing a head! hahahahaha!") or make horrible YouTube comments or whatever, it's like our society is going backward, and we want to call all of this "free speech?" No, it's free stupidity, really. That Texas teacher who went on FB and said "THAT COP WHO SAT ON THAT BLACK TEENAGER WAS RIGHT, AND MAYBE WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THE 60S AND SEGREGATE AGAIN, AND WHY DON'T THEY JUST STAY IN THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD" and then she got fired because she kinda forgot the terms or her own teaching contract about not posting inflammatory things on social media? That's not free speech, that's somebody who needed to take a deep breath, turn off the computer, go take a walk, and disconnect herself for a while from the fucking social media accounts, and remember that she needed her job and that she and her employer had a contract with specific language.

[telee.kom]

Maybe it would deserve it's own thread. I get that this is maybe more of a twitter issue rather than feminist issue. But I feel as though these social problems are sometimes taken bit too far. And that's not exclusive to feminism, but any kind of (internet) activism really. Sometimes people feel on so much of a high horse that they loose sense of reality I think. I don't think this particular case will end up in any kind conviction on anything, but holy fuck, why are we even talking about this? Why would this even come to a some serious discussion that might end up in a court? It's kinda scary to be dragged to a court for your opinion.

[allegro]

Maybe it would deserve it's own thread. I get that this is maybe more of a twitter issue rather than feminist issue. But I feel as though these social problems are sometimes taken bit too far. And that's not exclusive to feminism, but any kind of (internet) activism really. Sometimes people feel on so much of a high horse that they loose sense of reality I think. I don't think this particular case will end up in any kind conviction on anything, but holy fuck, why are we even talking about this? Why would this even come to a some serious discussion that might end up in a court? It's kinda scary to be dragged to a court for your opinion.

When people on social media wish to "voice their opinion," eventually they get so fucking (ahem) "passionate" about whatever it is, they lose their fucking mind, and something's gonna get broken, somebody's gonna get hurt. That is inevitable. That's the nature of social media. That's the purpose of social media.

I agree, "we wouldn't be talking about this" if people had common sense and common courtesy, compassion, if we pretended we were in the shoes of the person reading the comments, if it wasn't done online but, instead, in person.

But ANONYMITY and GENERATIONS OF PEOPLE who've grown up online and in front of cameras with too much attention, who SEEK attention, has taken away manners, common sense, compassion, empathy, intelligence, knowledge of debate, courtesy, and anything else that makes us civilized. People think it is "debate" online but, nope, REAL debate has RULES, REAL debate has a MODERATOR, REAL debate has GUIDELINES. The shit in social media is a fucking ego free-for-all.

Also, it takes SECONDS to sit in front of that computer in your underpants and whip out that passionate (half-stupid) response without thinking about the ramifications, about whom it will affect, about whom it will hurt, if it will violate the terms of your employment agreement, if it is considered harassment in your jurisdiction because you're drunk and you've already Tweeted 600 messages to that account you're Tweeting to again, etc.

You're not in the Real World; you're on Social Media!! This kind of half-space between Heaven and the Real World where nothing Real exists and you can SAY WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT AND NOBODY CAN FIND YOU.

Oh, wait, maybe not.

I don't know, I will have to see if I can find the actual Twitter conversation involved (or could you link it?); there are lots of times you can be "dragged into court for your opinion" -- case in point being if you harass somebody else with your "opinion." When you are shoving your opinion down somebody else's throat, in one way or another, publicly, and you cross whatever legal line that is drawn, over into the legal defined area of "harassment," there ya go. Depends on the definition in that jurisdiction.

These females felt "harassed" by what this guy said, I want to see what he "said" or "did" before I really form an opinion. It's certainly an interesting precedent for Twitter. Gotta say, I don't feel too sorry for Twitter right now, LOL. After seeing Trent Reznor trying to get Twitter to help him shut down harassment and they did nothing, maybe there should be some kind of Twitter harassment criminal bar, as a deterrent.

[Sallos]

Jail time for ""harassment""? That's something i'd expect from Saudi Arabia.

[theimage13]

When people on social media wish to "voice their opinion," eventually they get so fucking (ahem) "passionate" about whatever it is, they lose their fucking mind, and something's gonna get broken, somebody's gonna get hurt. That is inevitable. That's the nature of social media. That's the purpose of social media.

I feel like it's incredibly pessimistic and cynical to see that as the purpose of social media. I don't believe that sites like LiveJournal or MySpace (my earliest two recollections of social media) were literally designed for the purpose of letting people get angry and enraged and furious at people who disagree with them. But maybe that's because I saw those sites through the eyes of a much younger person; someone who didn't have the burdens of adulthood and who just wanted to chat with friends and be accepted. I never thought "good, now I can 'anonymously' yell and scream and preach my views and violently lash out at all who disagree". Just as I'm still not doing that. I disagree with what you said, but I haven't shouted, haven't called you any names, and certainly haven't had any violent thoughts. Why? Because I'm a grown ass adult who was raised to know the importance of being civil.

Blaming the platform for the actions of its users just seems silly. Blame the users. Facebook isn't holding a gun to your head and telling you to be a dick to people. They're just choosing to do so for their own reasons.

[Khrz]

The problem, to me, is that people still believe internet is about dialogue when it is about commentary.

So you slap a "social media" label on a website, and suddenly people think the purpose is to share, discuss and debate, but it never is. Even people arguing are merely commenting on each other's comment, really addressing their own choir under the guise of discussing an issue/topic.

Even here, that's what we mostly do. We're writing monologues in response to other monologues.

[allegro]

I feel like it's incredibly pessimistic and cynical to see that as the purpose of social media. I don't believe that sites like LiveJournal or MySpace (my earliest two recollections of social media) were literally designed for the purpose of letting people get angry and enraged and furious at people who disagree with them. But maybe that's because I saw those sites through the eyes of a much younger person; someone who didn't have the burdens of adulthood and who just wanted to chat with friends and be accepted. I never thought "good, now I can 'anonymously' yell and scream and preach my views and violently lash out at all who disagree". Just as I'm still not doing that. I disagree with what you said, but I haven't shouted, haven't called you any names, and certainly haven't had any violent thoughts. Why? Because I'm a grown ass adult who was raised to know the importance of being civil.

Blaming the platform for the actions of its users just seems silly. Blame the users. Facebook isn't holding a gun to your head and telling you to be a dick to people. They're just choosing to do so for their own reasons.

I *am* blaming the users. The users make the platform what it is. The car is useless without the driver.

Let's be clear: Facebook's main purpose is to sell ads and mine data. They don't care what you're saying. So long as you're using FB ($$$$). Obviously, more heated discussions are more apt to bring back a larger number of big mouths than recipe- and photo-sharers (a side benefit is more hits and more data for FB, which means more $$$$). Obviously, not ALL users use anything the same way but the big-mouth hate speech people have the biggest mouths on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. Will these companies DO anything about it? Hell no. Except for obvious illegal activity like Doxxing or hate speech or, (in some states where is it illegal) revenge porn, they have learned that big mouths bring other big mouths which means more hits, more ad revenue, more data-mining, etc. Kaching.

I avoid Facebook completely, now, because of the people who have turned it into a soapbox of bullshit. Hell, MySpace was actually FUN in comparison to this stupid shit. The CEO of Reddit was forced to resign because she actually wanted to ... gasp ... control the harassment (veiled as "opinion" and "free speech" including revenge porn)? On Usenet, we loved more moderation (and contained the shit in the shit areas). Go figure.

I'm on Instagram and I was following Caitlyn Jenner. The comments after each of her posts were astounding: "You aren't really a woman, you are disgusting." "I don't want my children to live in a world where people can change genders, that is not in the Bible." "You have mental illness." "I can see your dick in your dress." Etc. There were, literally, THOUSANDS of these comments. THOUSANDS. I tried not looking, but the comments are right under the pictures. I had to unfollow her.

I did an extensive college research essay for my communication major on non-verbal communication using online communication. I've watched online communication develop, from the earliest point until now. How it's morphing isn't all that different than it was 30 years ago, but the total lack of moderation and the huge number of users has meant that the trolls have taken over some areas (mostly those that are unmoderated, natch). (Whereas on, say, alt.flame on Usenet, the flames were contained to unmoderated groups, much like the Shit List on ETS.)

Jail time for ""harassment""? That's something i'd expect from Saudi Arabia.

I think they cut off your hands. Yeah, jail time is pretty harsh, especially for a 1st offense. I'd think maybe they'd give a fine or something.

[allegro]

Speaking of harassment, etc.

This is back from the olden days of Usenet, I remember this like it was yesterday, the person from Ann Arbor's M-Net (BBS system) who was harassed was my friend, she mostly laughed it off, but MES actually posted my friend's home phone number and address. (The Well used the same PicoSpan BBS system in San Francisco and MES was on there and on M-Net, too, as well as Usenet. I used to be a PicoSpan forum and conference admin; I was friends with Marcus Watts, he was my friend's roommate.)

Remember: BBSs and Usenet had NO ADS and NO REVENUE.

"Mark Ethan Smith" (Don't call me "miss"):
Contrib. post: [edited for pronouns]
Hung out (no pun intended) in soc.women back in 1987-88. Passionately
believed that society was a man's world and that women were treated
as hopeless inferiors. Responded to all male posters by feminizing
their names in the hopes that they would feel the shame that the
English language imposes on women by having gender-specific words.
Was particularly fond of the word "diminutive." (All female-specific
words were diminutives.) Changed his name, reported from Susan, to
MES in hopes that men would see the typically-male name, assume that
he was a man and therefore not patronize him as an inferior woman.
Insisted upon using only men's restrooms. Seemed to have tremendous
inferiority complex on account of being born female. May have been
involved in the comp.women debate.
--
I vaguely remember "Mr. Smith". He posted to soc.feminism/soc.women
(possibly to some ancestor of these newsgroups as well). The story was that
despite having two "X" chromosomes; he preferred to be called "mister" and in
all other ways to be treated as a man. May have had his name legally
changed to "Mark" (from whatever it was originally). He also claimed to
have worked for one of the armed services(?) and had gotten them to legally
treat him as a man rather then a woman. I haven't seen any postings from
him in years, but then again I haven't regularly read any of the soc.*
groups in years either. I don't think he is/was as 'unusual' as many more
recent legends; but probably deserves a mention. Perhaps USENET was just a
quieter place in those days...
--
"Mark Smith" was an annoyance outside Usenet as well; "he" (as the individual
insisted on being referred to) or "it" (as we liked to refer to the individual)
was an unwelcome visitor to a public-access Unix system called M-Net, in
Ann Arbor, during 1986 and 1987. Smith said all of the wonderful things
other posters have mentioned, and used the loginid "reason" -- the same login
"it" apparently used on the Well.
I vaguely recall that Smith harassed one M-Net user by mail and, perhaps,
voice phone to some extent.
--
Other than this "quirk" of Mr. Smith's, I also remember him to have an
itchy 'f'-finger as well as the requisite desire to post massive flames.
Additionally, I have vague recollections of a) threatened lawsuits and
b) accusations of conspiracy.
In general, most of the colorful net.personalities of 1986-1988 no longer
seem to be with us, or at least keep a much lower profile.
--
Ah, Mark Ethan Smith! Now we're talking net.legend.
Back in 1989 when alt.flame was newborn, and only had a fifth of the traffic
it has now, a certain Mark Ethan Smith entered the scene, and flamed absolutely
everyone. This spread to almost every newsgroup imaginable, and rumour has it
that "Mark E Smith" had up to 50 flamewars going -at once. The poster turned
out to be female, and her access was revoked because she was violating the fair
use policy... Strangely, some months later "Mark Smith" resurfaced in alt.flame
and talk.bizarre, and people feared for another round. Luckily, this was an
altogether more pleasant Mark Smith, completely unrelated to the legendary
spewer. This "new" Mark Smith wrote some very entertaining flames until mid
1992. But all this is legend, like Gene Spafford, Kent Paul Dolan, Patricia
O Tuama (Trish) etc.
--
>On the other hand, I guess I'm as glad as anyone that she's not a regular.
>Does anyone know what became of her? (I ask, peeking through my fingers
>in case it turns out I'd really rather not know).
The last I heard, which had to have been at least a year ago and
probably more like two, was that she was working in a copy shop in
Berkeley and seemed to be very happy and competent. I retain a vague
memory that she was managing the shop, but am not entirely sure that
this is correct.
--

[Khrz]

I *am* blaming the users. The users make the platform what it is. The car is useless without the driver.

Yeah, usually when we talk about a specific platform having a specific mentality or behavior, we're obviously talking about the user base. In itself Facebook, Tumblr, Reddit don't encourage a particular behavior in itself, they only provide the means. Tumblr being an echo chamber for SJWs is on the users, Reddit being a harbor for racism, sexism and abuse is on the users, Facebook constantly belching baseless "facts" is on the users.

The way a platform acts and is perceived relies on the most active and vocal part of its community. It obviously has nothing to do with the tool itself, as @allegro said, they're just providing a product, nobody's fuzzy on that I think...

[telee.kom]

The CEO of Reddit was forced to resign because she actually wanted to ... gasp ... control the harassment (veiled as "opinion" and "free speech" including revenge porn)?

Ha, this might be the first thing I would completely agree with you.

I use reddit on daily basis for three years, but I have to say I was never so embarrassed to be part of this website as I was when all the Pao hate circlejerk went on. Like fucking hitler and nazi comparisons? Really? And I wasn't exactly keen on the recent bans either- mostly because I want some clear guidelines of what is okay on this site and what not, not just "we ban these three subs because reasons and take what you want from it", but what it turned into what absolutely abhorrent. And when all the Victoria firing happened people just turned into a fucking mob no matter that it was said on very first day that Pao had nothing to do with it, that didn't stop the hivemind to blame her without any evidence.

You can have some legitimate complaints about people, but for fucks sake act like a human being while you do it.

[Volband]

The CEO of Reddit was forced to resign because she actually wanted to ... gasp ... control the harassment (veiled as "opinion" and "free speech" including revenge porn)?

Ha-ha, yeah, no. She was forced to resign because she was bad at her job, but more on that down there. Fun fact: the new CEO promised even stricter monitoring than Pao yet he got way less hate for it than Pao. You know why? Because turns out, when you are the CEO of a site like reddit, having the ability to talk to your people actually helps.

Ha, this might be the first thing I would completely agree with you.

I use reddit on daily basis for three years, but I have to say I was never so embarrassed to be part of this website as I was when all the Pao hate circlejerk went on. Like fucking hitler and nazi comparisons? Really? And I wasn't exactly keen on the recent bans either- mostly because I want some clear guidelines of what is okay on this site and what not, not just "we ban these three subs because reasons and take what you want from it", but what it turned into what absolutely abhorrent. And when all the Victoria firing happened people just turned into a fucking mob no matter that it was said on very first day that Pao had nothing to do with it, that didn't stop the hivemind to blame her without any evidence.

You can have some legitimate complaints about people, but for fucks sake act like a human being while you do it.

The Pao hate was warranted. She was a fucking terrible CEO communication wise, and she had it coming. Was she "literally Hitler?" Obviously not, but with power comes responsibility. It's not like suddenly becoming a famous actor and having a nervous breakdown because you can't take paparazzis. You agreed to be the CEO of reddit, one of the most famous and visited sites on the internet. You damn well knew that if you will fail at your job, you will get over the top hate.

She sucked ass, and whether she was just a glass cliff or not, it doesn't change the fact. It was a glorious day when the reddit blackout happened, and I'm glad I could witness it and even be a part of it! It was a fun experience, and was great to see how such an enormous site was shaken by it. And don't say Pao had nothing to do with it, she is the damned CEO, it is her job to keep the site running. No one cares if it was a higher up who wanted Victoria gone, it is, sorry, thankfully just was Pao's damn job to:
1. don't let the AMA's fall apart
2. communicate Victoria's firing to the community

She miraculously fucked up both, and then the blackout happened, and then the petitions happened, and the news of "reddit hates it's CEO" spread like fire.

It was a great opportunity for the real leaders of reddit to sack Ellen Pao and feed her to "the dogs". It is not unlikely that we got played, and it was indeed just a glass cliff: hire an inadequate female, make her push through changes which the community won't like, hate assures, then bam, she's sucked, former male CEO comes back and he is proving himself to be more transparent than Ellen Pao's glasses, which is all we, the community wanted in the very first place. Such political maneuvers have been present for thousands of years, so there's no point on crying over how unfair it is.

And back for the unwarranted hate: that's just anonymity for you. Was the Ellen Pao circlejerk so much worse than your everyday reddit circlejerk? Not really. All of these start out as things you can giggle about, then it becomes boring. Puns, thanks for the gold, wow my top comment is about anal sex, oh btw im a girl, etc. I hate them all, but what can we do? Thank God for smaller subreddits, where people are usually nice.

As for the banning, I don't see what is the problem with people discussing different ideas. Yes, fatpeoplehate deserved the ban because it basically hunted down individuals and harassed them into misery, BUT if the sub would've censored the identities of said fat people, then it wouldn't have been deleted, and that's fine. There are many subreddits I hate or do not agree with

[telee.kom]

- It's not anyone's job to communicate why was Victoria fired, because it's not anyone's business. It would be extremely disrespectful towards her to handle this publicly on the site with millions of users. Admins should have communicated better with IAmA mods about the transition, that's about it in regards of Victoria. This was internal matter, you don't know what the issue was. People are pissed about her being fired because "she was cool". But that's hardly a qualification that would keep your job. And Pao had nothing to do with this, Alexis fired her.

- Bad CEO communication wise? I don't get it. I don't think she communicated any more or less than any of their predecessors. You might not agree with what she's done, but I wouldn't say she didn't communicate. She personally announced all the privacy policy changes on the site, she personally apologized for not listening to the feedback to the mod tools. If you think she didn't communicate, maybe it's because her comments in these threads were downvoted into oblivion even though they were perfectly valid responses. She was trying to communicate, the users themselves were making it harder.

So I don't see where did she fucked up so bad. She was CEO for few months, the modtools were like this for many years and if anything, she was trying to do something about it and finally change things. But somehow it all falls on her head even though this is credit of all the previous CEO's and admin teams.

[Volband]

- It's not anyone's job to communicate why was Victoria fired, because it's not anyone's business. It would be extremely disrespectful towards her to handle this publicly on the site with millions of users. Admins should have communicated better with IAmA mods about the transition, that's about it in regards of Victoria. This was internal matter, you don't know what the issue was. People are pissed about her being fired because "she was cool". But that's hardly a qualification that would keep your job. And Pao had nothing to do with this, Alexis fired her.

She's the one overseeing everything, so when subreddit's are about to do their AMAs then someone just drops the bomb on them saying "oh btw Victoria is fired, so gl with those AMAs", then something is seriously messed up.

- Bad CEO communication wise? I don't get it. I don't think she communicated any more or less than any of their predecessors. You might not agree with what she's done, but I wouldn't say she didn't communicate. She personally announced all the privacy policy changes on the site, she personally apologized for not listening to the feedback to the mod tools. If you think she didn't communicate, maybe it's because her comments in these threads were downvoted into oblivion even though they were perfectly valid responses. She was trying to communicate, the users themselves were making it harder.

She had terrible transparency, it wasn't always clear why she does the things she did exactly. What's bannable, what's not? Everyone on reddit were confused as fuck. And that apology means nothing, do not buy into that, seriously. Do you know what I did when I was busted slacking off my work? I apologised. Why? Not because I was sorry, but I knew I had a job to do which I failed to do so, and the only acceptable response to save my butt is saying "sorry, won't do it again". If I had done my job, I wouldn't have been in that position to begin with. Same applies to Ellen. The problems did not start with her, but she did nothing to correct them, and as a fresh meat - who was expected to make things better - she got the hate tenfolds.[/QUOTE]

So I don't see where did she fucked up so bad. She was CEO for few months, the modtools were like this for many years and if anything, she was trying to do something about it and finally change things. But somehow it all falls on her head even though this is credit of all the previous CEO's and admin teams.

The tl;dr version of Ellen's misery is that it is a jungle out there, which she knew and willingly wandered in. Maybe she had good intentions, so here's a virtual pat on the back Ms. Pao, but that worths shit. In the jungle all people care about is what you accomplish, how do you communicate both your accomplishments and shortcomings, and how do you handle sticky situations. No one cares if you are a nice person or a powerhungry fiend behind the name, all that matters is what you do and how is it perceived.

And do not forget that the hate grow gradually. When she was named as new CEO, probably no one gave a shit about her. Then she (or some other people in her name, we will never know) started doing questionable things on reddit. Questions aroused. Answers were failed to be delivered. And the little hate-ball just grew, grew, grew. By the time Victoria was fired, it was way too late for Ellen. People were on the edge and all they needed is a reason to finally grab their pitchforks. It's not the firing of Victoria for which she deserved to be "dethroned", it was just the catalyst, the green light to swarm her. Once again, intentions does not matter - you have failed as a CEO if things get to this point.

Look at Gabe motherfucking Newell. Valve announced that mod creators can ask for whatever amount of money they want, and the share beteen the content creators and the developers in some cases went public and everyone was outraged. They boycotted Valve, made petitions, battles began among mod creators, developers and the users, and Valve got a shitton of hateful e-mails. Reddit front page was all about "fuck Valve". Then what does Gabe Newell do, a real CEO? In a span of a few days he reaches out to the fans, tells them he was away, and he is just reading about all that's happening, but do not worry, he will look into it, he will solve this out, because he is the CEO of this company, and he is the one who will solve this, and expect an AMA after he thoroughly investigated the issue. And that he did. The AMA was done to calm down people, to see that Valve listens, then shortly after everything was reversed. That is how you do it, that is what being a CEO in hard time means. And what if Gabe Newell had nothing to do with this at all? What if someone in full authority over stuff like mods made this decision? No one gives a damn, if your company is under attack you step in front of the people and take all the arrows. (edit: or if you can, make someone else take it, sure, not saying it's not an option sometimes, but when things are so heated as they were with Valve or Ellen, you can't throw anyone else under the bus but yourself)

Compare that to Ms. Pao. She was a doll with good intentions at best. The next old-new CEO's first move? AMAs about everything, laying down a clear program, communicating with subreddit moderators and redditors alike, hearing them out. Is it a facade? Maybe, but we all know that all we need is circus and bread. Ellen did not know that.

[telee.kom]

And that apology means nothing, do not buy into that, seriously. Do you know what I did when I was busted slacking off my work? I apologised. Why? Not because I was sorry, but I knew I had a job to do which I failed to do so, and the only acceptable response to save my butt is saying "sorry, won't do it again". If I had done my job, I wouldn't have been in that position to begin with. Same applies to Ellen. The problems did not start with her, but she did nothing to correct them, and as a fresh meat - who was expected to make things better - she got the hate tenfolds.

So what do you want from her? She apologized for mistakes that wasn't even hers to begin with and it still means nothing to you. So, I don't know. If you want to hold some irrational hate and grudge against someone for no reason be my guest, but I would actually need something more, something she would actually done wrong and she did nothing of sorts in my opinion.

Then what does Gabe Newell do, a real CEO? In a span of a few days he reaches out to the fans, tells them he was away, and he is just reading about all that's happening, but do not worry, he will look into it

I don't see how this is any different from what Pao did.

[Volband]

Dude, it's Pao's job to to run a proper, working site. Just because the toilet was messy before she arrived does not give her an out of jail card for not even starting to clean it up. What I wanted to Pao is not apologize for not doing shit, but to actually do something. It is easy as that.

You don't see it? If you want, I can look after the sources (like Gabe's initial response, then his AMA and then the countless satisfied threads by the people - it is all on reddit), but here's the gist of it:
- Gabe admitted something is screwed up and that he will look into it. Don't say Pao did the same, because it's been a problem for years at reddit, aka Pao knew very well that the mods are very, very unsatisfied with the way they are treated, while the Valve-fiasco was fresh and new.
- Did you read Pao's apology? Blood boiling, really. Shameful. Meanwhile Gabe? The dude just got off from the airplane, was on his way to the doctor because he had some kind of injury, but he reached out to the people asap in a genuine tone. I was like... wait, is this Gabe Newell, one of the richest, most influental person in the history of videogames? Is he a person like me?!?! I was floored. Compare his honest, people-like response to Pao's computer generated "blah blah yeah sorry, mah bad, empty promise 1, empty promise 2, kthxby".
- Gabe did an AMA asap, where he asked around what the fuck is going on exactly. What were the customers problem? What do they propose? How could us and him, aka W E solve this problem? Once again, I was just staring at the mod message which verified that yes indeed, this guy is Gabe Newell himself asking ME about stuff. I'm still dazzled. Pao? She couldn't even make her one-way statements clear, let alone talk with the people.
- Gabe solved the issue asap. Understood where the dissatisfaction came from and put an end to it immediately, I believe people even got their money back. Boom, done. Pao? Damn right the people who hired her thanked her for these beautiful months and let her go.

Now, two things:
1. Is Gabe the angel I just described him to be? Who knows. He seems like a genuinely nice guy, who really cares, but let's not deceive ourselves, he and his company probably tried to skin some $$$ off of people, it backfired, and then he saved face. Honestly, who cares? He solved it like a boss. It is his title, after all.
- Was Pao just glass cliffed? Might be, but if it's that the case, do not act like such an educated person did not know what she was used for. Don't pity her for accepting the role of a punchbag for the sweet, sweet dollars. I hope you know she is technically still employed as an advisor, I think until the end of the year, so even though she failed, reddit is still paying her for some reason.

edit: now that I remember, the reaching out and the AMA were the same thing. Just to clarify.

edit2: btw I don't hate her, couldn't care less about her. It was just really annoying under her reign, especially while seeing how her job could be done properly (i.e. Gabe, current reddit CEO).

edit 3: the AMA - yeah, compare every sentence of his to Pao's. The way he treats this is just so... I'm not even sure if professional would be the right world here, because he is totally layed back, totally on our level.

[telee.kom]

But she did started doing shit. She was forced to resign before she could finish the job. Or you think that new mod tools can be made in matter of weeks when nobody touched them for several years? I guess the new administration will now eat the cake, but she started those changes. Both popular and unpopular. But the things is that those unpopular policy changes will stay under Huffman as well, but I'm sure nobody will call him Hitler. But surely all will hail him for those great mod changes that "he brought" to reddit. But guess what, all these changes started under Pao's leadership.

What Newell did was just basic PR. You could also say that he/Valve should discuss this with the mod community beforehand and spare everyone the drama, because this was stupid idea from the get go.

[Volband]

But she did started doing shit. She was forced to resign before she could finish the job. Or you think that new mod tools can be made in matter of weeks when nobody touched them for several years? I guess the new administration will now eat the cake, but she started those changes. Both popular and unpopular. But the things is that those unpopular policy changes will stay under Huffman as well, but I'm sure nobody will call him Hitler. But surely all will hail him for those great mod changes that "he brought" to reddit. But guess what, all these changes started under Pao's leadership.

No one talked with the mods seriously, so whether Pao was working on the best mod tools of this millenia in secret or not, it doesn't change the fact that she forgot to inform the mods about it. Have you seen a prime minister who never announced his plans, you just woke up one day and baaaaaaaam, a new law which affects everyone's daily life has been just passed! Pao could have been the greatest woman for job out there, if she can't speak than it means nothing.

Interesting, after the blackout, the admins talked about concrete things with the mods, and even gave them a deadline. Transparency 101 with the added positive PR. It would've been literally a win-win for Pao, but she said "nope, let's see what happens when the shit htis the fan! so exciting!!"

What Newell did was just basic PR. You could also say that he/Valve should discuss this with the mod community beforehand and spare everyone the drama, because this was stupid idea from the get go.

Maybe, but that makes Pao's inability to reproduce this basic PR even more depressing. Give me 1000 $ and I would've ghostwrote the shit out of Pao - I could've made her the loveliest CEO ever! I'm fairly sure though that she was paid much more to do the same on her own.

[telee.kom]

No one talked with the mods seriously, so whether Pao was working on the best mod tools of this millenia in secret or not, it doesn't change the fact that she forgot to inform the mods about it. Have you seen a prime minister who never announced his plans, you just woke up one day and baaaaaaaam, a new law which affects everyone's daily life has been just passed! Pao could have been the greatest woman for job out there, if she can't speak than it means nothing.

Interesting, after the blackout, the admins talked about concrete things with the mods, and even gave them a deadline. Transparency 101 with the added positive PR. It would've been literally a win-win for Pao, but she said "nope, let's see what happens when the shit htis the fan! so exciting!!"

I don't know if you read this, because she specifically said in this post all of those things you mentioned.

https://www.reddit.com/r/announcemen.../we_apologize/

There is a sub designated specifically to mod-admin communication. It is handled by Deimorz which is a guy who made auto moderator, which is basically the best thing that ever came out of reddit in regards of moderation so yeah.. things are changing, people who care about this stuff knows they are changing and they also knew that it was Pao who initiated all of this. Sure, only after mods revolted, but that is still better than anything past couple of CEO's has done in this regard

https://www.reddit.com/r/ModSupport/

[Volband]

If past CEOs were even worse, it doesn't make her a good one. Also, that apology is the very definition of too little, too late. Oh, now you care, share and talk to us, that your house is burning? As reddit would say, "Thanks, M'Lady!!!"

[allegro]

And back for the unwarranted hate: that's just anonymity for you. Was the Ellen Pao circlejerk so much worse than your everyday reddit circlejerk? Not really.

This pretty much sums it all up.

[slave2thewage]

This thread -

[Khrz]

This thread -

ohshit you're not a girl. *facepalms*

[telee.kom]

Eh.. I know it's kinda weird talk about reddit outside of reddit, but it is social media still right?

[allegro]

Eh.. I know it's kinda weird talk about reddit outside of reddit, but it is social media still right?

Yeah, and this is interesting to read (and I agree with a lot of your comments on the subject herein), but the title of the thread is "Social Media and harassment so as long as we remember that ...

Will the current CEO contain the harassment on reddit?

probably not?

This is a really interesting quote from the "we apologize" link you posted, above:

[–]DickWhiskey 24 points 15 days ago*
Systematic and/or continued actions to torment or demean someone in a way that would make a reasonable person (1) conclude that reddit is not a safe platform to express their ideas or participate in the conversation, or (2) fear for their safety or the safety of those around them. We allow organized campaigns to reach appropriate points of contact, but not individual employees who have nothing to do with the issues.

This is a hugely unworkable harassment standard.

EDIT: For those of you who may be supporting this definition, think of it like a lawyer would think of it. Think of it as someone who is being accused of a crime and wants to find a way out. What would the problems be? The biggest problem, right on the surface, is that this definition is predicated on a number of concepts that also need a definition.

When it's something that the majority of people wouldn't disagree about (say, for example, the word "cabinet" - most people would probably agree, to within a certain margin, what is and isn't a cabinet). When the term is something more vague, that's what causes problems. This definition includes multiple vague terms, and the consequence is that it probably makes it even more difficult to agree on what is and isn't harassment. For example, grab your three best friends and have a discussion on how to define "systematic and/or continued" (continued for how long? two comments? 100? is it a period of time? a number of complaints?)), "torment or demean" (torment or demean - can we all agree what tormenting is? can we agree on whether something is demeaning?). Define "safe platform" - safe in what way? Physically? Mentally? Emotionally? Socially? At what point does it become unsafe?). Safe place to "express their ideas" or "participate in the conversation" - what is the level of expression or participation that everyone is entitled to? If someone concludes that they'd rather not post a comment because someone will call them an idiot, is that harassment? "Fear for their safety" - the same standard for safety that was used previously? - or the "safety of those around them" - does "those around them" mean family? or friends? or anyone that you know? what about anyone you know online or on reddit?

This is one of the worst attempts at formulating a standard for guiding conduct that I have ever seen. Note that it does not even require a level of intent (so you could be harassing hundreds of people right now without knowing it!). You might as well say "harassment is whatever makes someone feel unsafe" - and that's basically what they did here. Who determines what these words mean? Well, the admins, of course. And the words can mean whatever the admins find convenient in the moment, then they can change for the next convenience.

What is needed here is a clear definition with factors that can be used by a person to objectively judge new situations. For example, in New York, first degree harassment is defined as:

S 240.25 Harassment in the first degree.
A person is guilty of harassment in the first degree when he or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses another person by following such person in or about a public place or places or by engaging in a course of conduct or by repeatedly committing acts which places such person in reasonable fear of physical injury.

Now compare these two definitions. First things first, New York's statute isn't perfect either. But the conduct is fairly clearly outlined. It requires INTENT ("intentionally and repeatedly"), it requires that the conduct take place multiple times (reddit's definition could be read to include a person being injured multiple times by one action), it DESCRIBES THE PROHIBITED CONDUCT (following around in public spaces or repeatedly placing them in fear of physical injury), and it describes the TYPE OF INJURY (physical). Pao's definition doesn't do any of those things.

Here is a Wall Street Journal article about the Pao resignation, which I shall quote here because the WSJ sometimes requires a login when you link it:

Crisis of the Week: Reddit Parts Ways With CEO Ellen Pao

The crisis under the microscope this week involves Reddit and the resignation of its chief executive, Ellen Pao, who was forced out after strong criticism from site users over her firing of the company’s director of talent, Victoria Taylor.

The firing led to a revolt among some Reddit moderators who manage the thousands of discussion boards on the site, with moderators shutting down hundreds of boards in protest. Apologies from Ms. Pao and the company’s founder, Alexis Ohanian, were not enough, and Ms. Pao last week announced her resignation, after which she made some comments about Reddit users.

Using the statements from the company, Ms. Pao, Mr. Ohanian and Sam Altman, a member of the company’s board, we asked the experts to evaluate how well the company did in handling the firing of Ms. Taylor; the way it apologized; how it did in announcing Ms. Pao’s resignation and how it has tried to mollify angry moderators. Also, we asked them to grade Ms. Pao and the company’s other executives for how they did in trying to defuse the situation, and to suggest possible next steps for the business to take.

Richard Nicolazzo, managing partner, Nicolazzo & Associates: “Given that the embodiment of Reddit’s business model is ‘communications,’ its initial management of this controversy was surprisingly inept. The firing of Ms. Taylor was clandestine at best, tossing the website into chaos and virtually shutting down moderated conversations. The first, official company apology was decent but left the Reddit universe wondering if the company actually has the ‘horsepower’ to effect meaningful change.

“Not only did she say the company ‘screwed up’ on the Taylor firing, but that the company was in general chaos. This is not how CEOs communicate. Her early posting was, in a word, juvenile. Overall, Reddit gets a ‘D’ for how it first handled communicating. Newly appointed CEO Steve Huffman took a number of positive remedial steps when he used the site’s ‘Ask Me Anything’ platform to lay out the company’s proposed policy changes. Separately, Ms. Pao’s op-ed in the Washington Post was eloquent and thoughtful.

“Moving forward, Reddit should conduct a series of ‘town meetings’ or discussions via its website to obtain feedback from volunteers/users about what options it may want to offer users, get their thoughts on the issue of freedom of expression, and how abusive and inappropriate behavior and toxic content should be managed moving forward.”

Adele Cehrs, chief executive, Epic PR Group: “Ellen Pao is not a victim, she is just a bad communicator. In times of a crisis, people want transparency, leadership and solutions. The trolls didn’t get Ms. Pao–she and her corporate cronies had vague responses to a very public decision on what is the most unforgiving platform on the Internet.

“No matter what type of community you are dealing with, you don’t say, as Ms. Pao did: ‘We have apologized and made promises to you, the moderators and the community, over many years, but time and again, we haven’t delivered on them…The mods and the community have lost trust in me and in us, the administrators of Reddit.’

“Pao served herself and Reddit up on a silver platter to a community best known for devouring people’s reputations. While it’s unfair Ms. Pao received death threats, had her personal information posted and had racial slurs used to describe her…this is a classic case of not knowing your audience. In creating responses, executives and their PR teams must recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach just doesn’t work. Apologizing after a slipup has become so commonplace that communities expect it, but it still has to be sincere and direct.

“As the company was being skewered, Alexis Ohanian, co-founder and member of the Reddit executive team, seemed to enjoy the community’s anger in posting, ‘Popcorn tastes good.’ Mr. Ohanian eventually apologized for his tone-deaf comment, but things got worse when Reddit’s moderators took hundreds of subreddits down and made them private, virtually shutting down the site.

“Reddit needs to stay clear of ambiguity in its responses. In an article in CNN Money, [newly appointed CEO Steve] Huffman said some of the proposed changes don’t differ much from the existing policy, but ‘we really need to enforce it better,’ which is a weak response to a major corporate upheaval and the firing of a CEO.”

Mike Paul, the Reputation Doctor: “Ellen Pao learned the hard way that blaming her downfall on Reddit’s own users and getting rid of popular discussion coordinator Victoria Taylor was like pouring gasoline on a fire. A true apology has no ifs or buts; she should have taken full responsibility for the problems at Reddit as interim CEO. The buck stopped with her. Blaming end users as well as a very popular employee, and not thinking from the end users’ point of view, was horrible stakeholder relations, a critical skill any good CEO should master. I give her grade of ‘F’ for her exiting comments and actions.

“Sam Altman saying Ellen Pao ‘brought focus to chaos’ at Reddit is…a cover-your-ass strategy within a resignation letter. To me, Mr. Altman’s comments about Ms. Pao were not accurate or authentic and he piled on. I give Altman a ‘D’ for his recent communications. Alex Ohanian showed a lack of maturity and experience in his comments as he was delighted in sharing Steve Huffman was also to return. ‘We each have the benefit of five more years of experience now,’ Ohanian said. ‘Both the experience of building things, and maturity.’ Mr. Ohanian threw other Reddit leaders like Ms. Pao under the bus in recent comments. I give Mr. Ohanian a ‘C’ for his comments.

“I believe Reddit needs to lean on six reputation bricks to get back on track: truth, honesty, humility, transparency, accountability and consistency. If Reddit embraces them, it may have a chance at repairing its reputation.”

Also, Bloomberg weighed in:

Reddit's Ellen Pao Can Only Blame Herself

Those who weren't following the news from Greece this weekend may have noticed that Ellen Pao resigned from Reddit Inc., after recent management decisions sparked a user revolt. This has been brewing, but the proximate cause was the firing of a popular employee who worked with Reddit moderators. The moderators responded by shutting down a number of popular subreddits, including the well known ask-me-anything forums. A very popular petition was launched, demanding her ouster. And on Friday, Reddit capitulated.

The reactions that I've seen from most quarters have focused on political and cultural aspects. The seeds of revolution seem to have been planted when Reddit, under Pao, banned five unsavory subreddits focused on such delightful topics as shaming fat people and making racist comments. Naturally, this quickly escalated from a management decision about harassment to titanic culture war battle that achieved even greater scale because Ellen Pao recently lost a sexual discrimination lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins, in which she said she was treated as a second-class citizen, and they said she wasn't very good at her job.

Since those aspects have been well covered, I'd like to focus on something that hasn't been as well explored: the poor job Ellen Pao did running Reddit.

I don't say that lightly. I'm usually the first one to throw shade when writers who have never managed any project larger than getting themselves to back-to-back press conferences in different parts of town start proclaiming that they know exactly what a CEO should have done. My general feeling is that these people should go spend three months as the manager of a marginally profitable Chik-fil-A franchise, and report back on how easy it is to run a business.

Also -- perhaps because of my extensive experience as a woman writing about business and politics -- I am convinced that women have a handicap when they're doing a traditionally "male" job. They are resented by both men and women for stating firm opinions and refusing to back down. Their competence is more quickly questioned. They seem to attract wildly disproportionate anger compared with men who say and do the same things. And indeed, during her time at Reddit, Ellen Pao seems to have endured the same sort of abuse that us ladies on the Internet are used to getting when we make people mad. So I am inclined toward sympathy.

Yet, it is also true that under her brief leadership, Reddit seems to have careened from disaster to disaster, and not just because Ellen Pao's a woman and people watch female CEOs more closely.

Now, I understand that Reddit has a difficult problem to solve. On the one hand, if you let people say anything, they will use that freedom to say a lot of awful stuff with which no company really wants to be associated. On the other hand, Reddit has only one asset: its user base. People are a fragile asset, because what with the 13th amendment, you are always in danger that your asset will decide to pick up and go somewhere else. Having built its user base on the promise that Reddit was the place where no one would interfere with you being you, even if you happen to be a gigantic jerk whose greatest pleasure in life is saying ugly, offensive things about other people, Reddit was in a poor place to declare that all that free expression would no longer be tolerated quite so freely. Any CEO who tried to clamp down on the racism and fat shaming and harassment and so forth would have faced a real risk that the user base would suddenly decamp, leaving them with a lot of archives and no ongoing business proposition.

That doesn't mean that Reddit was wrong to try to clean things up. I love free speech, and yet that does not mean I feel obligated to invest my labors in providing a forum for making fun of the overweight, much less gleefully celebrating racism or other "isms." Reddit certainly had a perfect right to shut down these forums, possibly had a moral obligation to do so, and might even have a strong case that this was the best thing for the future of the business.

And yet the way that the company did this under Pao's leadership seems ... well, did I say "arbitrary" and "ham-fisted" yet? They chose five subreddits while leaving lots of other, also-very-offensive-and-possibly-even-more-so threads. They explained that this was because of harassment, not because the threads themselves were offensive, but did a very poor job of explaining what counts as harassment in a social media world where harassing strangers is practically the killer app for every platform. In the comments to the thread that announced the ban, at least one user pointed to a harassing subreddit that seems to still be up as of this afternoon

If you want to take a serious stand against harassment, or offensiveness, the way to do it is not to pick the five that got the most complaints and knock them off; it's to develop site-wide standards that are, insofar as possible, objectively outlined and don't map onto obvious political categories. Then you announce that there's a new sheriff in town, and put someone in charge of rooting out the offending behavior everywhere, publicizing the new regime as loud and long as possible. Then, after users have had a little while to adjust, and go through some pointed iterations of "knock it off, I'm serious, the ban-hammer cometh" .... well, then you can start banning stuff. Note that this is very far from the way it was actually done. Anyone who has spent any time working on the Internet should be able to figure this out. I'm pretty sure that I could have figured this out -- because I did, way back in 2002 when I became the CEO of policing my own comment threads.

I can only speculate why Reddit opted for a rather quiet sortie rather than a high-publicity blitzkrieg, and my best guess is that it somehow hoped that folks wouldn't notice, or get upset, if Reddit went about things without making a big fuss. Internet newbie mistake number two: Nothing is ever quiet, or unnoticed, on the Web. Especially on social media.

The firing of Victoria Taylor was similarly inept; she was sacked suddenly, apparently without any thought of informing the moderators or having a transition plan ready for the woman who led one of Reddit's most popular features; more than a week after it happened, the Internet is still floundering around trying to figure out why she was abruptly fired. It may not have been Pao's decision, but here's the thing: At a well-run company, it should not be possible to abruptly fire a key employee without first discussing that decision, or making plans to keep things running when she departs.

It may be that these problems were not created by Ellen Pao, that she was under board pressure to simultaneously grow users and clean up the site, and that she was stuck with a management structure that made the exercise of control difficult. But here's the thing: That shouldn't have been news to a competent analyst. If the board hired her with a mandate to tame some of Reddit's more unruly wilds, then she should have been clear with the board upfront that doing so might kill the company, because the site's freewheeling appeal and vulnerability to a massive user exodus are the two most obvious facts about it, visible to anyone who had ever spent more than five minutes on it. She should then have gone in with a clear mandate and a careful plan, and executed on them with the understanding that she might be signing the firm's death warrant. Instead her team started clipping away with a pair of extra small pruning shears, which neither solved the problem, nor saved her job.

PERSONALLY, I don't know how you secretly notify other employees about a firing before the fire-ee knows about the firing, as that hardly EVER happens in business because people can't keep their mouths shut, but whatever. They probably could have worked out some kind of exit arrangement with Victoria where she wasn't suddenly "fired" but was told that they would need to replace her; I dunno, you can't do that in the tech business for fear of sabotage so people are never really given "notice," they're just shown the door.

[telee.kom]

Current CEO said that the harassment policies will remain. But it seems to me they are not really enforcing it. I don't know why that is. Maybe they were scared by the dismissive reaction of lot of their userbase when they ban FPH, maybe it's sort of an insurance policy for when things go really bad (but then again, there were banned subs before even without these rules). The way lot of people explained ban of Fat People Hate is they harrassed people outside of the sub. This is an example of that. But than again, there are so many subs that do this. /r/holocaust is full of white supremacist and holocaust deniers, when I was arguing with them, some users went out of their was to send me angry PM's and downvote few pages of my profile. /r/coontown is like if Texas rednecks from 1920's started a sub. People there are openly boasting about killing niggers and stuff like that. My point is, there are so much of this on reddit. I don't know what to expect from these guidelines, that's what I think is the worst. Either enforce your own rules, or don't have them at all

[Leviathant]

I find the whole Reddit uproar to be pretty absurd. There are these self-proclaimed protectors of the community and this undercurrent of "almost anything goes", which arose because of the enormous growth of an overly open platform, and this righteousness that pervades their speech, as they talk about how great some people are, how terrible other people are, how important their precious threads and subreddits are, it's all so ephemeral and they don't see that.

Maybe that comes from being an administrator on Seems Like Salvation NIN News Forums, only after the guy who installed the forum software and told people to use it let it go unsupervised, and I told him he needed to let me run the place, even though I was operating a 'competing' news site. It was a very popular spot, and it's where I first 'met' Meathead. And then without warning, it disappeared. It wasn't a DNS entry, or a server being turned off, it was gone. Kaput. What felt like (and may have been) years of posts, into the ether. Much like the original Nothing Records message board circa 1997/1998.

And that's where ETS came from. A handful of people at SLS decided to start anew, and invited @orestes and me to be administrators. ETS had its own growing pains, and keeping the balance of openness and moderation was a trick of the hand that couldn't be sustained. Eventually, bad apples soured the batch, and by 2011, what had been the best community was almost universally known in outside circles for its hostility. Moderators didn't have as much time to moderate anymore. People who had been there forever asserted social power, intimidating the kind of newbies that they had been when they first joined years ago. A group of people made trouble whenever they thought moderators were overdoing it, and at the same time sometimes moderators were overdoing it and they were being encouraged.

And then the SCSI drive on the old server sitting under a desk at Greg's old job stopped working. And there was no current backup. Years and years of history - deleted, aside from what Google Cache could see from what publicly available forums were spidered.

And we started over, which allowed for a kind of social reset. Kick the assholes out right away, we know that keeping them around doesn't actually benefit. Some of my favorite cities are only as good as they are because they were burned to the ground in the last century. Reddit makes too much money for someone to purposely kick the plug out, but man, I wish they had the balls to start from scratch. Same framework, even, just 0 users... 0 posts. And kill the pests before they can swarm.

Maybe that sounds cynical, but for fucks sake, there's so much more to life than reddit. I get that there's so much that comes out of it, too, I really do. But the bravado I see surrounding this simple platform that I used to go to strictly for the really smart techy people that shared science and programming articles is so very absurd. Let it burn.

[Volband]

Current CEO said that the harassment policies will remain. But it seems to me they are not really enforcing it. I don't know why that is. Maybe they were scared by the dismissive reaction of lot of their userbase when they ban FPH, maybe it's sort of an insurance policy for when things go really bad (but then again, there were banned subs before even without these rules). The way lot of people explained ban of Fat People Hate is they harrassed people outside of the sub. This is an example of that. But than again, there are so many subs that do this. /r/holocaust is full of white supremacist and holocaust deniers, when I was arguing with them, some users went out of their was to send me angry PM's and downvote few pages of my profile. /r/coontown is like if Texas rednecks from 1920's started a sub. People there are openly boasting about killing niggers and stuff like that. My point is, there are so much of this on reddit. I don't know what to expect from these guidelines, that's what I think is the worst. Either enforce your own rules, or don't have them at all

I'm sorry, but don't you see the error in your thinking? You said so many other subs does this, then give no example. If someone is a holocaust denier then they are immidietly harassing someone? If someone hates black people, they are doing the same too?

The answer is, no. You basically just said "I don't like they thinking so I want their subreddit to be banned." On what grounds do you think what you are asking for is acceptable? And every sub is different, you have to accept the people there. If you say "dog" on r/cat you are banned. It's what it is, but knowing this, I never had any trouble at reddit. I can manage my favorite subreddits and I spend my time there. I don't go into r/christianity or r/coldplay to argue with people, and if I did, I would not be surprised if my "coldplay is shitty imo" reply would get 300 donvotes in 10 minutes. Even if I'd try to reasonably state why I think Coldplay is just the shittiest band ever, I'd still get destroyed there. Or maybe not, who knows, I've never been to r/coldplay.

Their rule is that subreddits which harasses people are and will be banned. r/coontown and r/whateverthenameofthewhitesupremacistpeople'ssub are safe, r/shitredditsays on the other hand...

The other subreddit which is about to be deleted is the one about raping women. Now, that sub doesn't harass anyone, but I think we can all see the difference between hating a race or denying a historical event or having stupid thoughts AND between promoting rape. Being racist or stupid is not a crime, while rape is.

[telee.kom]

I gave you my personal experience with /r/holocaust and how they were harassing me?. It happened months/year ago and I don't feel like going that far in my message history, so you have to take my word for it. Coontown is infamous for harassing r/blackladies for example, this goes way back, I think I even read an article about it in huffpost or something like that. They were going as far as posting pictures of dead black people on this sub every day. I mean, if that's not harassing I don't know what else is.

The answer is, no. You basically just said "I don't like they thinking so I want their subreddit to be banned." On what grounds do you think what you are asking for is acceptable?

Where have I said anything of sorts?

[Volband]

So posting dead black people is offensive and bannable, but the regular r/wtachpeopledie is not offensive and bannable, because it shows dead people from every race? And if you say you would ban r/watchpeopledie as well, then what would you do with r/justiceporn, where are many top threads about bad people getting murdered? Is it not bannable if the dead in question a criminal? If not, then what if the black person on said picture was a criminal? If yes, where do we stop? Prohibit pictures of dead people altogether, even if it is to show the casualties of terror attacks, or incidents like the Germanair catastrophe? Should we ban racist jokes? How can r/christianity and r/atheist both exist? One of those subs are even more wrong, and in a way, more offensive, than r/holocaust. What if God exists, he is the reason we still did not destroy ourselves, and people over at r/atheism are denying his existence, or even making a mockery about him. But what if r/atheism is right? Then r/christianity is quite offensive saying there's a God up there, while thousands of innocent people are dying for no good reason.

You see, whether you strongly agree or disagree with something does not validate the existence or non.existence of an idea, or really, anything.

As for the harassment, it's somewhat different. Did r/holocaust made a thread about you or linked your name anywhere on their sub? Because if not, then what you just explained is simple brigading, which is an issue at reddit, but it affects almost every single bigger subs. If they harassed you outside of r/holocaust as well, then that's a different thing, but I bet they would stop doing that once they realized that reddit is indeed willing to ban subreddits.