News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Reddit will not ban 'distasteful' content, chief executive says. Parent comment

Re:Reddit will not ban 'distasteful' content, chief executiv... by jmillikin on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @12:18PM (#4665129) 

  > You can't ban content just because it offends someone,
  > there wouldn't be much content left, if any. Is religion
  > distasteful? Violent images of war? Gay marriage?
That's a slippery-slope argument, and it's ridiculous in this case. Reddit isn't being pressured to ban any and all offensive content; they're being pressured specifically about sexually-suggestive photographs of underage girls, created without consent.

In fact, Reddit already has rules against this sort of content. From their user agreement: "You further agree not to use any sexually suggestive language or to provide to or post on or through the Website any graphics, text, photographs, images, video, audio or other material that is sexually suggestive or appeals to a prurient interest."

So what the pressure is really about is Reddit ignoring their own rules to benefit one of their personal friends, and a small horde of terrible people defending this decision by pretending that teenage upskirts are free speech.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reddit will not ban 'distasteful' content, chief executiv... by Goronmon on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @12:23PM (#4665158)
That's a slippery-slope argument, and it's ridiculous in this case. Reddit isn't being pressured to ban any and all offensive content; they're being pressured specifically about sexually-suggestive photographs of underage girls, created without consent.

Haven't they already decided not to allow the pictures of underage girls? I could be wrong, but I thought that had happened a while ago with the closing of /r/jailbait or some similar subreddit.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reddit will not ban 'distasteful' content, chief executiv... by jmillikin on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @12:26PM (#4665181) 

  > Haven't they already decided not to allow the pictures
  > of underage girls? I could be wrong, but I thought that
  > had happened a while ago with the closing of /r/jailbait
  > or some similar subreddit.
They close particular subreddits when they become widely featured, such as /r/jailbait on CNN or /r/creepshots on Gawker.

They do not ban the users who posted such content, and do not take measures to prevent them from re-creating the same subreddit under a different name.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reddit will not ban 'distasteful' content, chief executiv... by danielweber on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @01:15PM (#4665458)
As a point of order: the admins did not kill creepshots. People who didn't like it got the personal info of a mod and blackmailed him into shutting it down.

Several clones of creepshots popped up and most of them got shut down pretty quick, so it looks like reddit has some kind of new rule but they haven't told the community what it is.

I'm pretty sure there were jailbait-clones set up that got shut down, too.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reddit will not ban 'distasteful' content, chief executiv... by danielweber on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @01:05PM (#4665396)
You further agree not to use any sexually suggestive language or to provide to or post on or through the Website any graphics, text, photographs, images, video, audio or other material that is sexually suggestive or appeals to a prurient interest.

I like the rest of your argument, but this rule exists only on paper. This is lots of porn on reddit, both people posting self-shots as well as (almost assuredly pirated, but that's a separate discussion) professional porn.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reddit will not ban 'distasteful' content, chief executiv... by aes256 on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @12:35PM (#4665242)
You are grossly misrepresenting the nature of the content posted on /r/creepshots here.

Your description of "sexually-suggestive photographs of underage girls" is way off the mark.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reddit will not ban 'distasteful' content, chief executiv... by tptacek on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @12:40PM (#4665272)
In anticipation of the relentless quibbling about what is or isn't "sexually suggestive", I opted to use the word "compromising". Having said that: a Google search for this term finds pictures of teenage girls often with their faces blurred; it's pretty clear what the point of the photos are: to objectify girls and young women. That the objectification is happening as much for the amusement of adults as for their direct sexual gratification doesn't change things up too much for me. Maybe it does for other people.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reddit will not ban 'distasteful' content, chief executiv... by aes256 on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @12:49PM (#4665311)
/r/creepshots was almost exclusively photos of women, very few of whom were obviously underage, in public places.

The extent to which these photos were "sexually suggestive" was largely in control of the women concerned. If you're going to wear low-cut tops, yoga pants, etc. then a photo of yourself taken in public may be interpreted as sexually suggestive.

Contributors to the subreddit were just posting things they had seen in public. What's wrong with that?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reddit will not ban 'distasteful' content, chief executiv... by tptacek on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @12:52PM (#4665318)
You realize that this argument about the implied consent to sexualize someone based on their attire is extremely fraught, right?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reddit will not ban 'distasteful' content, chief executiv... by aes256 on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @01:01PM (#4665377)
Since when did people need consent to post pictures they took, legally, of people in public, where these people have no expectation of privacy, then post them on the Internet with words to the effect of "I find this person physically attractive, I would like to have sexual relations with this person"?

I can sexualize whatever I like, thank you very much.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reddit will not ban 'distasteful' content, chief executiv... by tptacek on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @01:03PM (#4665384)
That is a repellant point of view, but I don't have the patience to argue about it further.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reddit will not ban 'distasteful' content, chief executiv... by rmc on Thursday October 18, 2012 @03:53PM (#4670737)
Some countries recognise the right of privacy. In which case, it is illegal to distribute personal information (like photos) of people without their consent.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reddit will not ban 'distasteful' content, chief executiv... by rmc on Thursday October 18, 2012 @03:53PM (#4670735)
Women (or anyone really) do not give consent to be photographed for sexual purposes merely for wearing a certain type of clothing in public.
[ Parent | on HN ]