Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks The Media

Reddit Removes Communities To Address Harassment, Users Respond 474

New submitter sethstorm writes: As a change to their community management, Reddit administrators have banned multiple communities (known as subreddits) in a bid to remove harassment. In response, users have responded in different ways — some have pointed out the bias of Reddit admins for leaving known harassers alone such as those in the "SRS" subreddit, others have attempted to re-create the banned subreddit "FatPeopleHate", and many have gone to overwhelm Voat (a competitor).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reddit Removes Communities To Address Harassment, Users Respond

Comments Filter:
  • Routing around it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2015 @11:38PM (#49888725) Journal

    Who said, "The Internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it"? Yes. It's old. You've probably heard it a million times; but it's so apropos.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      In this case, though, that's arguably part of the point: the idea isn't to drive the heretics into the sea and expunge utterly their untruths(in which case you'd be worried about the 'routing around it' effect); It's to get the insufferable assholes to go be insufferable somewhere else. The fact that it's relatively easy to take your ball and go home, or elsewhere, is arguably an advantage, since it reduces the incentive for your obnoxious users to stick around and fight to the death, rather than just going
      • by blue trane ( 110704 ) on Thursday June 11, 2015 @12:40AM (#49888877) Homepage Journal

        There are technological solutions to this social problem. Filter speech at the client. Program smart filters that recognize those you consider undesirable; but let them express themselves. Banning, like antiobiotics, leads to super versions of that which you are trying to get rid of.

      • it's not that complicated. there's still plenty of repugnant and hateful content on reddit, but those subs are not doxxing or harassing individuals

        the subs banned yesterday is a function of them targeting specific individuals. that's the problem

        go ahead and express as much hate as you want, in general. but isolate one specific person for harassment, and you're censored. i accept that, that's a good policy, it makes sense. it's also in line with generally understood freedom of speech laws in the usa and elsewhere. for example: i can be a fundamentalist douchebag and preach destroying western civilization. that's fine. but if i say "we should go after {XYZ} location or {ABC} person," then the authorities have reason to act against you. as they should: you're issuing threats. that's not free speech

        likewise, targeting real people online with doxxing and harassment means genuine harm can come to someone. reddit might be in jeopardy legally if a lawyer in a courtroom can say "it was on reddit that the transgressor acquired the person's name and address as a target for this form of hate"

        it's repugnant, but it's ok to be amorphously hateful. it's not ok to specifically target individuals. that is a valid threshold and cut off point for a truly free society

        no freedom exists that is not in tension with the freedoms and rights of others. naturally, logically, not as a function of government or laws

        my right to listen to loud music at 3 AM is limited by your right to get a good night sleep. my right to speed my car as fast as possible is limited by your right to not die in car crash

        and my right to hate a group of people is limited by your right to not be harassed and attacked by dimwitted hateful douchebags

        so you have no natural right to doxx, stalk, harass, or otherwise target individuals. only amorphous groups. this is a natural logical limit on your freedoms

        where you've gone from harmless loser justifiably engaging in free speech, to malicious asshole gunning for a specific person, you should be censored, you should be charged, you should lose your rights. because you are using your rights to threaten the rights of others

        the stereotype of a freedom destroying fascist authoritarian government abusing your rights because "evil" is not really the whole story of freedom destruction in this world. the reality is threats to your rights and freedoms comes more often from other citizens around you. the immature shitbag thinks freedom means "i can do anything i want." the mature responsible truly freedom loving individual thinks freedom means "i can do anything i want as long as i don't harm anyone else"

        unfortunately, there is no shortage of moronic douchebags in this world who think freedom means they can hurt other people. and so they shall be censored. arrested. prosecuted. imprisoned. as is right in a freedom loving country

        abuse your responsibility to not harm others? lose your freedom. face valid censorship for threats (not free speech) or worse. rightfully and 100% compatible with the concept of maximizing freedom

        there is nothing about the concept of freedom that says those who destroy freedom deserve to be free

        • by Shadow of Eternity ( 795165 ) on Thursday June 11, 2015 @02:22AM (#49889127)

          Except, yknow, that's complete and utter bullshit. SRS is probably one of the single worst offenders on the internet as far as organized and sustained stalking, harassment, and doxing goes.

          • SRS engaged in doxxing only in the past, before the policy was announced

            but even if that is not ok to you, then the solution is to ban SRS as well, not let fatpeoplehate get away with abusive behavior

            "hey i heard about a guy who murdered someone once, so this guy should be able to get away with murder too"... that's not actually how morality nor the real world works

            two wrongs don't make a right

          • NSFW! (Score:3, Informative)

            They banned fatpeople hate but these subreddits still exist: (And I'm not directly linking to them for your own safety)

            • /r/CuteFemaleCorpses
            • /r/sexyabortions
            • /r/watchpeopledie
            • /r/Deformed
            • /r/rapingwomen
            • /r/killingwomen
            • /r/beatingwomen2
            • /r/picsofdeadkids
            • /r/ladybonersgonegory
            • /r/HurtingAnimals
            • /r/BurningKids
            • /r/HurtKids
            • /r/killingboys

            Then if you want to talk about specific hate speech there is /r/CoonTown and a few anti-Semite ones.

      • by Shadow of Eternity ( 795165 ) on Thursday June 11, 2015 @02:20AM (#49889121)

        Reddit patently doesn't give a damn getting rid of insufferable assholes, if they did ShitRedditSays and all of the subreddits they've taken over would've been nuked from orbit and most of the SRS bad faith actors permanently banned ages ago. This is about censoring opinions that go against the social justice elite's beliefs.

        • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Thursday June 11, 2015 @04:24AM (#49889535) Journal
          "Social justice elite"? This sounds like a conspiracy theory even more fun than the reptilians, if perhaps not up to the truly classic standards of the Illuminati.
          • It's an undergraduate level political science term actually and it's hardly a conspiracy theory when these people more or less brag about being in the same circles, attending the same cultish indoctrination and groupthink "conferences" (ever notice how creepy XOXO is?), and work together through private mailing lists to blacklist and blackmail people they dislike.

            Hell on reddit alone SRS is basically the admin retirement home.

    • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Thursday June 11, 2015 @12:14AM (#49888809)

      Who said, "The Internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it"?

      It was John Gilmore [wikipedia.org]. But he was wrong. Vast swaths of the Internet are effectively censored behind national firewalls, and much more is under the control of a small oligopoly of corporations. John underestimated the power and capabilities of the censors.

      • Show of Force (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Kunedog ( 1033226 ) on Thursday June 11, 2015 @03:56AM (#49889425)

        a small oligopoly of corporations

        That might be a major reason for this crackdown. Reddit has unbelievable traffic and reach, so stuff that earns popularity there gets spread to virtually everywhere and everyone.

        It's exposure that marketers (of anything: products, politics, whatever) would kill for. They want to buy their way in, but not if some dirty peasant can tell the truth and (through sheer merit) get voted up and be taken just as seriously (or more seriously) than their bought & paid for message.

        So Reddit sees advertisers chomping at the bit to throw money at it, but first Reddit has to demonstrate that it can crush contrary opinions at will.

  • by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2015 @11:45PM (#49888749)

    There have been a lot of strange things going on for a while at reddit.

    Banning people because they mentioned the alleged ponzi scheming of the CEO's husband,

    Making a bunch of crappy sub-reddits defaults, removing other (crappy) sub-reddits as defaults.

    This just seems to be the tipping point for a lot of people. I don't think most people really actually cared about the ban, but the way it was done and the obvious other sub-reddit targets that were just ignored, or had excuses made for them.

    I just looked back at digg.com for the first time in a couple years from when it flamed out heroically on it's 2.0 launch. It's not horrible now, there doesn't appear to be too much drama on their front page. Looks like delicio.us Just a abc/cbs style repost of yesterdays "hot web news"

    supposedly people flocked to voat.to so hard they took down the site.

    The other thing people seem to be doing is re-enabling adblock on reddit, and voting with their purse strings by not purchasing gold anymore.

    • I just looked back at digg.com for the first time in a couple years from when it flamed out heroically on it's 2.0 launch. It's not horrible now, there doesn't appear to be too much drama on their front page. Looks like delicio.us Just a abc/cbs style repost of yesterdays "hot web news"

      Yep, I was there when Digg.com updated their site to nobodies liking, most migrated to Reddit.com. Digg.com is now all but forgotten.

      A long fall from their height after shutting down the site when a key to bypass Blueray (?) DRM was posted, then came back on-line and that key was reposted by everybody, it became a popular site over that.

    • I just looked back at digg.com for the first time in a couple years from when it flamed out heroically on it's 2.0 launch. It's not horrible now, there doesn't appear to be too much drama on their front page. Looks like delicio.us Just a abc/cbs style repost of yesterdays "hot web news"

      I'm being nitpicky, but it was actually their v4 [searchengineland.com] release that drove everyone away. It was sold [theguardian.com] two years later for a mere $500k.

    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      Perhqps they qre looking to sell or cashing in. On Imgur, the image hosting sister site of Reddit, there are now sponsored postings possible as well as removal of images and messages that were previously allowed.

      So perhaps they are cleaning up their act to be more actractive for buyers or for advertisers (or both)

  • by StandardCell ( 589682 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2015 @11:46PM (#49888751)
    Reddit has an outrageously smug user community with a chaotic moderation system. I've been on Slashdot since the 90s, and I can at least say that it's a somewhat sane place to discuss tech-related and nerd-related topics (other than the typical political/religious commentary nonsense). The metamod system alone is a great balance, as is limiting the number of votes and randomizing who gets the votes prevents upvote and downvote brigading. It's pretty rare for factually-incorrect information to get upvoted or factually-correct information buried. Even when mods approve some article that looks like an advertisement, Slashdot users spot it and bring those comments to the top.

    I occasionally read Reddit, but I get very frustrated watching completely factual information get downvoted or subreddits banned because it doesn't fit users' or moderators' view of the world. Between this and the Ellen Pao controversy, sites like voat might actually have a chance of doing to reddit what reddit did to digg. In fact, voat is doing the exact same thing to reddit that reddit did to digg when reddit posted the infamous shovel logo to welcome disgruntled digg users by welcoming the "fatpeoplehate" refugees. Oh how fickle the social media world has become...
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Slashdot isn't all that better. There are tons of informative posts that go ignored while smug, finger-wagging, vapid posts get modded up. Just look at any "controversial" topic and you'll see a hive of horrible comments. The only difference is that a few days later, it's usually settled down such that almost EVERYTHING is modded down, informative or not, leaving behind only those opinions that have won by popularity.

      • I think two things help Slashdot a lot: a) Moderation is earned - you can't just create an account and go at it. b) meta-moderation seems to ameliorate the effect of poor moderators. While the calibre is often low, you can filter it out because of an effective moderation system.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11, 2015 @12:37AM (#49888867)

      I'm only a casual user of sites like Reddit or 4chan, but it really does feel like censorship is trending on these kinds of sites, and it doesn't make sense. These sites, including Slashdot, are supposed to be regulated by the community. Mods shouldn't have to manage bad content, only bad behavior that threaten the ecosystem of the site, such as astroturfing or spamming.

      What's happening isn't responding to community needs so much as selectively shaping the community. It's the online equivalent of gerrymandering.

      • That's a good point. If the moderation system was all that, the sensitive souls would brigade every post made in /r/fatpeoplehate and it'd take care of itself.

        And naturally the ability to freely create new subs and new accounts mean that any banning is at best temporary.

    • Many, many submissions critical of the new selectively-enforced policies were voted up and made it to the front page (and especially r/all). They've now vote-locked subreddits where those posts tend to come from, meaning those subreddits' users can't vote them up any more (nor can they even affect the order of posts in the subreddit itself).

      This is blatant, shameful astroturfing by the admins and ownership hide content and opinions before they have a chance to take off. It couldn't be clearer that the
      • Of course they're not afraid of harassment. Some of reddit's top staff "retired" to join SRS, they are the harassers.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        You say selective enforcement, can you give examples of that? Examples where it is clear that they are deliberately ignoring things, rather than just not having got around to dealing with them yet. This is the first round of bans, after all.

        Can you also link to some examples of where they are trying to stifle criticism? The few links I've seen happen to be part of larger posts or threads where there is clear trolling, and rather than surgically remove the problematic bits the mods just trashed the whole lot

    • Between this and the Ellen Pao controversy,

      How did Ellen Pao become CEO? That makes no sense to me....she doesn't really have the experience, as far as I can tell, but suddenly there she was. How did she swing that?

    • by gsslay ( 807818 )

      I get very frustrated watching completely factual information get downvoted or subreddits banned because it doesn't fit users' or moderators' view of the world.

      Reddit is like this because people are like this. Every site is the same, it just manifests itself if different ways according to the mechanisms used there.

      If you want to change how this happens on social media; first change people.

      (Hint: people won't change.)

    • I've been on Slashdot since the 90s, and I can at least say that it's a somewhat sane place to discuss tech-related and nerd-related topics (other than the typical political/religious commentary nonsense).

      But never warm guns, for therein, happiness lies.

    • It's pretty rare for factually-incorrect information to get upvoted or factually-correct information buried...I get very frustrated watching completely factual information get downvoted or subreddits banned because it doesn't fit users' or moderators' view of the world.

      I never down-mod factually incorrect information because it can still be interesting or informative or funny. It can still spawn discussion. Or, hell, I could be wrong. Maybe some things that I'm absolutely certain can't be facts actually

  • by Vyse of Arcadia ( 1220278 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2015 @11:47PM (#49888757)

    I used to moderate a couple of forums about a few different video games, sizable at the time but nothing the size of Reddit, for sure. But there were some rigid things about our setup that I liked.

    • We had very specific rules. No "community guidelines," but hard rules.
    • When disciplining a user, we had to cite specific rules that had been broken, and it was good form to cite or quote the infraction.

    I feel like the backlash (maybe shitstorm is more appropriate) on Reddit is because the users don't feel the admins are playing by a set of rules. They haven't cited any specific rules the banned subreddits were violating, just "harassment" (which they didn't define.) Moreover, the punishment has not been doled out uniformly, with plenty of users pointing out subreddits that also should have been banned if harassment subs are banned.

    The judgements being handed down seem, to apparently fucking everyone on Reddit, arbitrary. Like some far off god on Mt. Olympus has suddenly decided mess with people at random.

    Maybe I'm just talking out of my ass because I've never had to manage a community the size of Reddit, but this just seems like an admin took offense to something ("got triggered," in the parlance,) and dusted off the ol' banhammer without thinking. I don't know if that's what happened, but that's how it seems, and that sort of abuse of power always triggers (the way the word is really used) a community schism.

    • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Thursday June 11, 2015 @01:57AM (#49889083)

      They created new rules very recently about reddit being a "safe space". This is something that is, of course, extremely vague. What the hell is a "safe space"?

      So suddenly some long time subreddits are getting banned for violating that. They are all shitty splaces, but then other shitty places seem to get left alone. As such people are rightly saying "What the fuck?"

      Basically the rule is an arbitrary one. They are saying "We can ban you if you say things we don't like." Now its their site, they can do that if they wish, of course, but that is why users are reacting so negatively. It isn't a clear rule that is being consistently applied, rather it is deliberately vague and being targeted in a scattershot fashion.

      • When it comes to censorship, the US supreme court said it best [findlaw.com], I think:

        If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

        If you don't like someone's viewpoint, explain why it is wrong, rather than trying to censor them.

      • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Thursday June 11, 2015 @03:06AM (#49889289)

        What the hell is a "safe space"?

        A space where you're not safe to speak your mind. Lets face it over the past 2 years Reddit has shown quite clearly that they do not condone or promote an open forum where everyone is free to speak their mind.

        • by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <[mashiki] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday June 11, 2015 @06:42AM (#49889845) Homepage

          Correction, a safe space is where they only allow particular kinds of speech. And anything that might hurt someones feelings is bad speech, it's the same BS that's going on in universities.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          You can speak your mind, as long as your mind doesn't want to troll or post racist/sexist/homophobic abuse. To be honest, I don't really see how Reddit could be any other way without turning into 4chan, and even 4chan eventually had to kick out the worst offenders.

          Any commercial service has to prevent itself becoming a cesspit of trolling or it won't last very long. Advertisers will leave, the majority of users will leave, their reputation will fall as low as 4chan's. If you want that kind of place to exist

          • I disagree. /. handles it pretty well, I think. Just moderate it down to -1. You can read it if you want.

            You can speak your mind, as long as your mind doesn't want to troll or post racist/sexist/homophobic abuse.

            On /. I can call you a "nigger bitch faggot" all I want and nothing will happen to my post except it'll sit at -1: Troll and nothing will happen to me except some lost karma that I'll never miss, and you'll tag me (again) as "Foe." And yet /. survives as a commercial entity.

            In fact, my bad speech would likely be countered with other, good speech, calling me out for my twatish behavior. Over time, those w

      • What the hell is a "safe space"?

        A place they can show potential buyers when they plan to sell Reddit.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10, 2015 @11:54PM (#49888763)

    This is exactly why we need liberty-minded proponents setting up anonymous mechanisms of communications. Nobody should have the right to censor content online. I don't care who you are. Not even if its a death threat, a bomb threat, or a threat against the president himself. Threats don't kill people people kill people.Yes- words can take a toll, but it's not the same as actual physical abuse. You can get away from online harassment. You can't get away from a school bully. As a gay person I get words can hurt- but a solution is NOT worth the price of censorship. And I'm going to say the worst thing I could because nobody else will: feminists or whoever you are that's crying about nudes being published of you: suck it up. The problem is social, not the person who violated your privacy. Nobody is physically attacking you and if they did it's a social problem- not a communications problem. It's the people physically attacking- not the f'ing words.

    All that ever happens from these anti-harassment laws is the government comes in and uses them against people it doesn't like. There are already laws against murder and other other forms of abuse. You don't need another law to tack on to someone whose murdered because they dislike some racial, social, sexual, or other group.

    • This is exactly why we need liberty-minded proponents setting up anonymous mechanisms of communications. Nobody should have the right to censor content online.

      Wait, what? You don't believe that the people that go through the effort of creating and maintaining their own forum should have the ability to exercise some control over the content being posted on that forum? The comments they host become a reflection of that site and mold its reputation.

      Don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate censorship and I th

  • by GoRK ( 10018 ) on Thursday June 11, 2015 @12:18AM (#49888817) Homepage Journal

    I have been around here a long time.

    I can honestly say that I am dissapointed to see /. post gloating over a row brewing on another community site while at the same time censoring discussion and posts related to the recent and ongoing Sourceforge controversy. Choosing which subs stay and which go is going to upset a small but vocal set of users. They would be stupid not to know this.

    In the case of Sourceforge, I think it's much worse to sell out and betry the trust of an entire community. But let's not talk about it!

    • and yet here your comment stands, uncensored

      i also think slashdot did have a top level story on this topic a few days ago

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Multiple top level stories in fact. The first about GIMP, then another about the hijack of namp, and then another about Sourceforge's response to the criticism.

    • by rsmith-mac ( 639075 ) on Thursday June 11, 2015 @01:41AM (#49889041)

      while at the same time censoring discussion and posts related to the recent and ongoing Sourceforge controversy

      Apparently I've missed something. What precisely got censored?

      • by horm ( 2802801 )
        There were multiple submissions about the story a while before any made it to the /. main page. It wasn't until some users raised some shit in the comments for some unrelated articles that more users got wind of the story and demanded answers. After all that, the editors finally published a submission about the SourceForge hijacked, but severely neutered the original submission to make it sound innocuous.
        • I get where you're coming from, but at the same time that's not something I would call censorship.

          Censorship is when speech is suppressed. Slashdot choosing not to publish stories is scummy, but it's not the same as preventing users from speaking about it. You can still talk about it, Slashdot just isn't give you a specific platform for it.

          When comments get deleted and users get banned, then that's censorship.

    • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Thursday June 11, 2015 @03:09AM (#49889293)

      And yet here we are, you with a +5 insightful post that is none the less bagging the very site where you have been promoted. Slashdot has ultimately run several articles about problems involving itself and fellow sites sharing a corporate overlord (though on one occasion a considerable amount of pressure was required). They only time they ever censored something they ran a post about the fact on the front page and had a large discussion about the result.

      So yes they deserve to gloat, they are in many MANY ways far better and less arbitrary than Reddit.

  • by Iamthecheese ( 1264298 ) on Thursday June 11, 2015 @12:20AM (#49888829)

    There's a certain critical mass of dissatisfaction in a user base/community. Until that point the site can be salvaged. It takes more than an unpopular move by admins/community leaders. There has to be BOTH:

    • A significant percentage of users dissatisfied with admins. Not with something else, with the way the site is being run. It can't be external and it must be administrative.
    • Administration unresponsive enough to make users even more unhappy

    I think it can be generalized to other communities but for web sites in particular there has to be enough dissatisfaction to create a feedback loop of angry users being ignored leads to leadership blunders leads to more angry users. When meta-conversation overwhelms normal conversation there's a tipping point. Slashdot has almost been there. coughcoughbetacough But it takes more than that. At the tipping point administration must demonstrate such disregard for the users concerns that a revolt becomes meta-shared knowledge. Many users knowing isn't enough. They need to know that other users know. [youtube.com] Only if that happens the site will descend into a digg-esque melt-down and hemorrhage users until admins capitulate or the site collapses.

    I don't think Reddit has reached that point. In fact, I think this will serve as a safety valve. Users who strongly value freedom of expression will go to voat [http] and everyone else will stay, and not see as many complaints. Obviously this makes the culture more brittle. Reddit is not in danger now but will lead to other problems down the road.

    This is a big step toward Reddit becoming an echo chamber. New users will be less likely to stay and it will create its own cultural feedback loop. Those unwilling to toe the party line will find themselves shunned. Users will pretend to go along, hiding how they really feel, leading to a more intense echo chamber. Soon there will be prescribed viewpoints on almost any topic. Reddit will die then. Not with a bang but with a whimper.

  • by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Thursday June 11, 2015 @01:25AM (#49889005)

    Tolerance means everyone gets to say things they like.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Tolerance now means you can't say what I don't like.

  • fatpeoplehate got shut down for brigading and doxxing, not simple hate

    imgur started removing fatpeoplehate images and in response the reddit sub posted pictures of (chubby) imgur staff and a thread topic about harassing them and identifying specific imgur personnel exploded

    you can argue about imgur's removal of fatpeoplehate images as censorship, but you cannot call reddit's actions censorship, as removing threats and harassment is not logically the same as censorship

    you could say there are double standards if and where other subs have engaged in doxxing in the past, or if and where other subs still do it, but on a smaller scale. but then the solution is to ban those subs as well, not let fatpeoplehate get away with abusive behavior

    there are still plenty of repugnant and hateful subs on reddit that are not shut down. because they aren't doxxing

    if voat is going to accept brigading and doxxing, then voat is going to get sued and shut down when, not if, someone gets hurt in real life because of ignorant internet hate

    reddit did the right thing, as a matter of simple morality, and as a matter of self preservation in the face of legal standards

    if you harass and threaten someone specifically, you're not engaging in free speech anymore, and you, and the forum you are doing it on, are culpable for any harm stemming from that. freedom of speech is not limitless. it is no longer free speech when you threaten specific people

    any comment or discussion here about censoring hate is inaccurate

    any comment or discussion here about preventing harassment and threats is on topic

  • oy vey (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZankerH ( 1401751 ) on Thursday June 11, 2015 @02:26AM (#49889145)
    Your rights end where my feelings begin! Shut it down!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11, 2015 @02:49AM (#49889233)

    Just do it in the name of feminism and the admins will let everything slide.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    This is not something about harassment.

    Board critical of the neogaf forums was killed and no public notice was given out.
    Coontown is still up.

    I guess reddit loves to be considered "gnaa" central, right?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I was never a user of fat people hate. But i watched it play out overnight.

    The way they did it with instant ban. While giving the disingenuous hypocritical bullshit excuses they did.... Just dumb.
    Don't the people running reddit know how the internet works? How people work?

    Instead of having 'those hateful FPH users' in one contained easily ignored spot. Now they're spread all over and multiplying.
    And have the support of most everyone who really hates censorship too.
    And all the random users who think t

Hard work never killed anybody, but why take a chance? -- Charlie McCarthy

Working...