Topic: /r/IAmA, /r/AskReddit and many other subreddits are private now (Read 2478 times)
August 06, 2015, 12:26:13 PM
Not just one group. There are many subs that are more than questionable. I guess they just got more complaints about FPH.
And from where most of those complaints came from? Hmm... r/SRS?
August 05, 2015, 06:46:02 PM
He says Reddit is also banning communities that ... "generally make Reddit worse for everyone else."
That's an interesting concept.... in other words, they'll ban whoever they feel like or who they're told to ban, and try to explain later.
Funny.... Reddit 'forgot' to ban one group:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays
August 05, 2015, 06:24:57 PM
He says Reddit is also banning communities that ... "generally make Reddit worse for everyone else."
That's an interesting concept.... in other words, they'll ban whoever they feel like or who they're told to ban, and try to explain later.
August 05, 2015, 06:15:40 PM
Reddit updates content policy, bans a 'handful' of groups that exist 'solely to annoy' others
Reddit, the online discussion site known for free-wheeling discussions, is updating its content policy as it tries to be a more welcoming place for everyone.
Co-founder and CEO Steve Huffman posted on the site Wednesday that the goal is to consolidate the "various rules and policies that have accumulated over the years into a single set of guidelines."
He says illegal content, inciting violence and "involuntary pornography" are still banned.
So what's new? A community can now be quarantined — so that only people who choose to see its content can see it. Huffman says groups will be quarantined if they would be "extremely offensive" to the average Redditor.
He says Reddit is also banning communities that exist solely to annoy others, and "generally make Reddit worse for everyone else."
http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2015/08/05/reddit-updates-content-policy-banning-a-handful-of-groups
Limits at Gawker? Rules at Reddit? Wild West Web Turns a Page
Facing the abrupt resignations of two of his top editors on Monday and a potential revolt inside his newsroom, Gawker Media’s founder and chief executive, Nick Denton, tapped out a long memo to his editorial staff.
Mr. Denton wanted to explain his decision to delete a radioactive post about a married male media executive’s unsuccessful attempt to hire a gay escort and to contain the fallout from that decision inside his company.
But the memo also included a startling admission: “The Gawker brand,” Mr. Denton wrote, “is both confusing and damaging.”
In other words, Mr. Denton was repudiating the identity of the website he had spent 12 years building. And he was doing so just days after Steve Huffman, the chief executive of Reddit, had taken a strikingly similar step to distance his company from its own anything-goes past.
There has been no shortage of discussion about how legacy media companies will find their way forward in the digital age. But in trying to recalibrate their identities, Gawker and Reddit are demonstrating that digital media companies are struggling to manage a difficult transition of their own — from financially underachieving, if popular, start-ups to thriving, mature businesses.
“This feels like a moment of reckoning to me,” said Vivian Schiller, the former head of news at Twitter who was previously an executive at The New York Times. “We’re moving from the early days of ‘We’re free to write or post whatever we want,’ to the reality of building a business.”
In his memo, Mr. Denton sketched out what was essentially a new vision for Gawker, calling for the creation of more “humane guidelines.” As he put it: “We need a codification of editorial standards beyond putting truths on the Internet.”
For his part, Mr. Huffman, in the face of mounting evidence that Reddit’s theoretically self-governing community had descended into an often noxious form of anarchy, proposed a new content policy for users, or Redditors, as they’re known. It would ban, among other things, illegal activity, harassment and sexual content involving minors.
Neither Gawker nor Reddit is talking about imposing the sorts of rules and standards that have long governed the behavior of traditional media companies. But that they are talking about rules and standards at all represents a significant departure for both of them — one that reflects the practical limits of absolute freedom of expression, even for native Internet companies that have prided themselves on their opposition to what they see as self-censorship.
It was inevitable that these companies would eventually find themselves at this juncture. “There is an Internet strategy, which is audience and growth first, business model second,” said David Pakman, a partner at Venrock, a venture capital firm that invests in technology companies. “Because of that ordering, the challenges that the pursuit of a business model presents manifest themselves later in life.”
Gawker and Reddit are very different businesses, in terms of both mission and scale. One is a modest-size provider of editorial content, the other an online message board with 170 million regular monthly users. But the two companies were created within a few years of each other: Gawker in 2002, Reddit in 2005.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/business/media/limits-at-gawker-rules-at-reddit-wild-west-web-turns-a-page.html?_r=0
Reddit CEO Ellen Pao Says She Is The Victim Of “One Of The Largest Trolling Attacks In History.”
A.K.A. Failed CEO blames customers she hated for hating back.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/07/16/ellen_pao_came_out_against_trolls_so_they_came_for_her.html
Key word: "buried". Not "banned".
If you have a discussion, but nobody gets to see it you can't really have that discussion. You could say: at least it's consensus based, but someone might be tricking the voting system.
And if I decide to do a global search about the advantages of a centralized system withing bitcoin I could still find the posts, even if that subject was buried. It would still be there, somewhere.
Not the case with a total ban and cleansing.
I agree with you that the banning of ideas is wrong. Even in the case of climate deniers being banned from the science sub, it's wrong. There is no defense to censorship because the exchange of ideas and information is important to the process of understanding. And this opinion is coming from someone who sides with the science supporting the notion of rising temperatures. They are wrong to ban climate deniers.
Reddit has already banned "climate deniers" from one section, I'm sure they'd be happy to ban other people from sections because they don't like their opinions or think them valid. Yes you are somewhat free, right now, to discuss everything on the internet, but not on Reddit. That's the point of this thread.
I think that was a decision of the moderators not reddit itself. In a subsection like /r/science this should be expected - it's almost like you're discussing atheism in /r/truechristian. You can always make your own subreddit to discuss a topic.
If you bring up the advantages of centralized systems in /r/bitcoin it will probably get buried even if you make some valid points- if a majority opinion exists you usually don't even need to ban it, because it will get downvoted.
I'm sure there were people in the science field who could debate the science against "climate change". I watched a really compelling video against it recently with statistics and everything.
And there will always be atheists in a Christian section. Debating Christianity with atheists and other religions is beneficial for everyone. It causes the Christian to truly look at what they believe, instead of just going along without thinking.
I believe highly in debate. You learn something new everyday, and this is a great way to do it. One shouldn't have their head in the sand, and especially not by force. I would think both sides of an issue should think this way. Though I guess some people don't care.
Key word: "buried". Not "banned".
If you have a discussion, but nobody gets to see it you can't really have that discussion. You could say: at least it's consensus based, but someone might be tricking the voting system.
And if I decide to do a global search about the advantages of a centralized system withing bitcoin I could still find the posts, even if that subject was buried. It would still be there, somewhere.
Not the case with a total ban and cleansing.
Reddit has already banned "climate deniers" from one section, I'm sure they'd be happy to ban other people from sections because they don't like their opinions or think them valid. Yes you are somewhat free, right now, to discuss everything on the internet, but not on Reddit. That's the point of this thread.
I think that was a decision of the moderators not reddit itself. In a subsection like /r/science this should be expected - it's almost like you're discussing atheism in /r/truechristian. You can always make your own subreddit to discuss a topic.
If you bring up the advantages of centralized systems in /r/bitcoin it will probably get buried even if you make some valid points- if a majority opinion exists you usually don't even need to ban it, because it will get downvoted.
Key word: "buried". Not "banned".
Ok, I know most sites have sold out in some ways. I just mean if you're trying to have a discussion or debate with someone, it's silly to do it on a site, where one side of the argument will either get banned or deleted before everyone can see it, etc. It's like debating with a wall, that's not a debate at all.
What type of debate would that be? Unless you deny the holocaust you can discuss everything on the internet. Otherwise you only get banned for personal attacks, excessive swearing, threats, etc. - that's not the point of any debate.
Reddit has already banned "climate deniers" from one section, I'm sure they'd be happy to ban other people from sections because they don't like their opinions or think them valid. Yes you are somewhat free, right now, to discuss everything on the internet, but not on Reddit. That's the point of this thread.
So, why would anyone want to use Reddit to debate issues? Example: the denying climate change people are banned from the ability to post on the science section. It's so funny to me, that people would even bother talking in that section, it's like having your head forced into the sand by Reddit. Like it was oh-so damaging to hear the other side. If there's nothing to the Climate-denier's view point, then what is the problem with having them have their say?
It should kill reddit. (I don't think it will) Only brainwashed people would even bother posting on a site that has clearly sold out.
Like 1.2 billion people on Facebook?
Exactly.
Ok, I know most sites have sold out in some ways. I just mean if you're trying to have a discussion or debate with someone, it's silly to do it on a site, where one side of the argument will either get banned or deleted before everyone can see it, etc. It's like debating with a wall, that's not a debate at all.
I don't use reddit, since they don't pay me and all big social networks have questionable moderation acts and business activities, and all are aligned with the new world order agenda
So many people willing to be slaves, working hard and not getting paid. I am talking about the moderators. I am talking about all the contributors bringing materials, for free.
I don't use reddit, since they don't pay me and all big social networks have questionable moderation acts and business activities, and all are aligned with the new world order agenda
OK. That is REDDIT GOLD!
[...]
But... the most delicious part of this is that on at least two separate occasions, the board pressed /u/ekjp to outright ban ALL the hate subreddits in a sweeping purge. She resisted, knowing the community, claiming it would be a shitshow. Ellen isn't some "evil, manipulative, out-of-touch incompetent she-devil" as was often depicted. She was approved by the board and recommended by me because when I left, she was the only technology executive anywhere who had the chops and experience to manage a startup of this size, AND who understood what reddit was all about. As we can see from her post-resignation activity, she knows perfectly well how to fit in with the reddit community and is a normal, funny person - just like in real life - she simply didn't sit on reddit all day because she was busy with her day job.
Ellen was more or less inclined to continue upholding my free-speech policies. /r/fatpeoplehate was banned for inciting off-site harassment, not discussing fat-shaming. What all the white-power racist-sexist neckbeards don't understand is that with her at the head of the company, the company would be immune to accusations of promoting sexism and racism: she is literally Silicon Valley's #1 Feminist Hero, so any "SJWs" would have a hard time attacking the company for intentionally creating a bastion (heh) of sexist/racist content. She probably would have tolerated your existence so long as you didn't cause any problems - I know that her long-term strategies were to find ways to surface and publicize reddit's good parts - allowing the bad parts to exist but keeping them out of the spotlight. It would have been very principled - the CEO of reddit, who once sued her previous employer for sexual discrimination, upholds free speech and tolerates the ugly side of humanity because it is so important to maintaining a platform for open discourse. It would have been unassailable.
Well, now she's gone (you did it reddit!), and /u/spez has the moral authority as a co-founder to move ahead with the purge. We tried to let you govern yourselves and you failed, so now The Man is going to set some Rules. Admittedly, I can't say I'm terribly upset.
https://i.imgur.com/BBvdWuv.gif
https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/content_policy_update_ama_thursday_july_16th_1pm/ct3n7hc
------------------------------------
What a twist
Get ready to buy more popcorn:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/3daxz1/reddit_is_updating_its_content_policy_nearly_500/
https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/3daxz1/reddit_is_updating_its_content_policy_nearly_500/
https://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3db40q/discuss_in_this_thread_where_the_fuck_were_going/
It should kill reddit. (I don't think it will) Only brainwashed people would even bother posting on a site that has clearly sold out.
Get ready to buy more popcorn:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/3daxz1/reddit_is_updating_its_content_policy_nearly_500/
https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/3daxz1/reddit_is_updating_its_content_policy_nearly_500/
New York Times’ Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism
The world is still adjusting to the idea of instant news on the Internet and the ability to easily change and rewrite history in many ways. The Internet has, for better or worse, completely changed the way reporting can be done with a very simple tool: the ability to update pieces after launch. This has many upsides as it means new information can be added to easily augment or complete stories to provide more information to readers and keeping pieces timely. However, there is a hefty potential downside, where sites can cover up and completely rewrite stories without any informing, correcting major errors without comment or just flat out change the story they’re covering.
The New York Times is most recently guilty of this as a NewsDiff’s comparison of their story on Ellen Pao’s resignation shows. The original story was written by Mike Isaac who titled it “Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief” and presented a relatively neutral and information driven piece on the situation as a business technologies writer. That story, though, is not what you’d find if you went to the New York Times now, because nearly all of it was rewritten by David Streitfeld with reporting by Vindu Goel in San Francisco and published on the front page. It is titled “It’s Silicon Valley 2, Ellen Pao 0: Fighter of Sexism Is Out at Reddit” and is much more of an opinion heavy piece compared to the previous one.
The differences are astounding, as anyone who viewed the original article would return and find it replaced with a wholly other story dealing primarily with sexism around Reddit and how Ellen Pao was a “hero to many.” While the original article included the sentence “Many Reddit users blamed Ms. Pao directly in the hours after Ms. Taylor’s firing, flooding Reddit’s forums with vitriolic messages — often racist and misogynistic — calling for Ms. Pao’s ouster” it was the only instance of citing sexism or misogyny in the original article, as, particularly recently, users’ comments towards Pao were generally unkind. The story also originally had a small mention of her previous and ongoing court room drama regarding gender discrimination that was significantly increased in the rewrite, putting in almost a small other article on the state of that trial there.
The issue here in many ways has to deal with the fact that David Streitfeld’s updated story has almost nothing in common with Mike Isaac’s original story. Only 87 words carried over to the new version, and while allowing for a few more in just format changes, that is an incredibly small amount of the 477 words that were in the original article. The tone, the angle, the presentation, and what the article was attempting to accomplish are vastly different things that merit a separate piece instead of a complete rewrite.
http://techraptor.net/content/new-york-times-reddit-piece-shows-dangers-of-internet-journalism
Comparing: It’s Silicon Valley 2, Ellen Pao 0: Fighter of Sexism Is Out at Reddit
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/technology/ellen-pao-reddit-chief-executive-resignation.html
http://newsdiffs.org/diff/934341/934454/www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/technology/ellen-pao-reddit-chief-executive-resignation.html
Were they purported to be the same article, or did the rewrite change the byline too?
It just seems like the mainstream media is heading further towards sensationalism to get readers versus just reporting news. There were a few articles on Yahoo (dunno if anyone would call them mainstream), but they talked about homosexuality, and those issues recently. They are often criticized in their comment section of using the worst titles, idiotic stories with wrong conclusions based on what little facts they have, etc, just to get views these days. Most of the comments on those types of stories show not many are buying into it, and yet, they continue to pump them out instead of trying to clean up the way they "report" things or "advertise" with odd titles that don't really match the story.
Does the nyt article mention any correction or updates or changes? If not then it was stealthy. Check out the newsdiffs.org link.
That's pretty messed up.
Jump to: