Reddit speaks. Reddit says what it’s going to do about stuff like “creepshots.” Nothing, of course.
But Redditt doesn’t admit the nature of the stuff it’s going to do nothing about. Reddit bullshits. Reddit pretends the subject is “distasteful” stuff. That makes Redditt a lying dog.
Social news site Reddit will not censor “distasteful” sections of its website, its chief executive has said.
The site has recently been criticised over sections in which users shared images of, among other things, women photographed without their knowledge.
Yishan Wong told the site’s moderators legal content should not be removed, even if “we find it odious or if we personally condemn it”.
“We stand for free speech… we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits.”
Oh, fuck you, you piece of shit. Publishing pictures of women taken without their knowledge or consent is not “distasteful.” It’s not free speech (it’s not speech at all, for a start). It’s not some glorious liberal principle you get to “stand for.” It’s rapey invasive violation of other people.
In a posting made to a private area of the site for moderators and administrators, Mr Wong described the situation as “a bit of a pickle”.
“There sure has been a lot of trouble lately for Reddit, and I’d like to talk about about that before I nip off for a spot of tea,” he wrote. He went on to add: “We know that some will not agree with us. We also think that if someday, in the far future, we do become a universal platform for human discourse, it would not do if in our youth, we decided to censor things simply because they were distasteful.”
However, Mr Wong – who used to be an engineer at Facebook – said the website would continue to enforce a policy to not allow “doxxing”, a term given to the process of outing a member by posting personal details online.
“We will ban the posting of personal information, because it incites violence and harassment against specific individuals,” Mr Wong said.
He blamed past instances of misguided “witch-hunts” for this rule.
Has it all. Deep concern for their privacy combined with total indifference to the privacy of outsiders. Self-pitying accusations of “witch-hunts” combined with determined protection of the violation of outsiders. We are The Good People who “stand for” free speech; They are The Bad People who do “witch-hunts” and have no right to their own privacy.
What if it’s a photograph of personal identification, taken without the individual’s consent?
Surely that’s FREE SPEECH!, right?
There is nothing illegal about taking people’s pictures. There is something unpleasant, to me, about using those images for your own sexual pleasure, but that’s still not illegal. I commend Reddit for standing by their values of supporting freedom of expression- even when it is not socially acceptable to some.
A photo, in this case, is clearly not worth a thousand words.
I’ve only ever seen the front page of Redditt and find the idea of those sections creepy and I’d like to see them go away. I don’t see any value to them. But what do I say to someone who considers my atheism to be offensive and shouldn’t be on the internet?
And, no, don’t fob this off as “concern trolling”, that is often just used as a way to arbitrarily ignore significant moral conundrums. I think of myself as better than the creeps posting “creepshots”, but people in on-line forums have called me the anti-Christ, a god hater, and all of the usual tropes. Can I call for the dissolution of those forums without being hypocritical on free speech? I think you can make a substantive case that the photos feature pictures of people used without their permission. On the other hand, most social media sites are about pictures of people used without their permission, usually by friends or acquaintances, including those of minors. The issue in the Reddits forum is largely the re-purposing and re-posting of photos without permission, in creepy contexts.
What is the right way to handle this that is consistent with my strong stance in favor of free speech and liberal IP laws?
emily, you’re a moron. This isn’t just about TAKING pictures, it’s about PUBLISHING them. And PUBLISHING photos taken without the subject’s consent can very well be illegal, or a tort offense, at least in some circumstances.
And even if something is legal, that doesn’t make it right, beneficial, or reflective of any “values.”
Calling something “free speech” seems to have become the lazy idiot’s way of refusing to acknowledge the difference between right and wrong.
@2
Depends on the nature of the photos and how they are taken. There are laws for example against voyeur photography in some places. For example if someone takes photos of you in the bathroom stall or changing into your swimsuit at the local pool. If done without your knowledge or consent this is generally considered immoral and in some parts of the world illegal.
…people in on-line forums have called me the anti-Christ, a god hater, and all of the usual tropes.
Do you really think that’s indistinguishable from misusing photographs of people? And do you really think you have no right to — at least — ask for a certian level of civility?
Can I call for the dissolution of those forums without being hypocritical on free speech?
Yes, you can, just as Ophelia can filter comments here (and we can ask her to do so) without being hypocritical on free speech.
On the other hand, most social media sites are about pictures of people used without their permission, usually by friends or acquaintances, including those of minors.
And said media sites can, and at least sometimes do, regulate the use of said photos. And the public can judge them by their actions, and demand they behave better. Why is this suddenly a problem for you?
Please don’t say things like “you’re a moron.” Say “that’s a moronic claim” if you must, but not “you are.”
Emily, legality isn’t the issue. It’s not illegal to tell a small child she’s ugly and stupid. So what?
Well, clearly the strategy to rely on the “good-nature” of the reddit administration to not post creepy pictures because they’re creepy and invasive is not working. Because it’s not technically illegal. I have a problem with this, of course, but maybe we should be considering a new strategy: make it illegal! Someone mentioned that in the UK it is illegal to post pictures of under-aged girls without their parents’ consent. What type of real political action can we take to push for something akin to this in the US? Are there political actions underway already that I can donate $ or time to that Ophelia or the commentariate are aware of? We really need to stop this disgusting trend.
(under-aged people, not just girls)
Scote – degrading specific people is not comparable to atheism.
Free speech does NOT come with an obligation to enable or provide a platform for other people’s speech, especially if you find that speech offensive.
Reddit is not the government; they have every right to limit speech on their own servers, and they aren’t violating free speech if they do so; in fact they would be exercising their own free speech rights.
Allowing yourself to be bullied by skeevy perverts like “violentacrez” into enabling their nasty habits isn’t defending free speech. It’s an abdication of your own freedom.
Unless you yourself actually like looking at upskirt photos of unsuspecting underage girls…
I am also tired of these fucks.
“There sure has been a lot of trouble lately for Reddit, and I’d like to talk about about that before I nip off for a spot of tea,” he wrote.
Is this guy TRYING to compound the offense he’s already caused? I think I see the source of the problem here.
Well you see he was talking in a “private” section of Reddit for admins and moderators…Oh the multiplying ironies.
While I don’t disagree with your overall goal of having places like reddit stop hosting things like /r/creepshots, I have to disagree with your assertion that posting pictures taken in a public space as not being free speech.
It is free speech.
This has nothing to do with whether or not they should host that kind of content as a company.
They get to use the “free speech” shield from social pressure as the excuse to keep on doing this, and sadly it will probably work.
It is great to point out their hypocrisy in their policy to prevent “doxxing” because it causes harm and retaliation – since the creepshots can similarly pose the same kind of harm and retaliation.
But this doesn’t change the fact that if someone is in public, they can be photographed, and the owner of that photograph can do whatever they want with it.
“We will ban the posting of personal information, because it incites violence and harassment against specific individuals,” Mr Wong said.
Whereas it isn’t harassment against specific individuals when an on-line sub-culture encourages the repeated violation of privacy, can lead to incredible distress if the victim discovers it, can lead to long battles to get their image removed, and can lead to hounding if others in the victim’s life discover their photo on-line. Of course, it also doesn’t incite violence and abuse when you allow misogynistic people to embolden each other by discussing women with venom or by creating a space where domestic abuse is portrayed as acceptable.
This is why I tend to loathe absolutes. There is no way that these are minority views that require protection since they are predicated on the antithesis of individual sovereignty. They are rooted in complete disregard for boundaries. As per the Popper quote on tolerance, I’ll gladly support denying those views a platform.
Hopefully, the rigidity of Reddit will cause it significant strife in the future so that it either reforms or falls before a competitor that will provide an environment that’s tailored to the average individual rather than trolls and abusers. I don’t know where the understanding of free expression permeating the internet came from but I think it needs to die because it’s a be warped into tool for protecting the vilest ideas imaginable.
(P.S. Did I do something horrifically wrong because whenever I click Preview I get told that only ‘administrator’ users can use the mobile admin panel.)
Yet another clue of how simpleminded this Wong guy is:
“We also think that if someday, in the far future, we do become a universal platform for human discourse, it would not do if in our youth, we decided to censor things simply because they were distasteful.”
Really? Is he actually saying Reddit can’t become “universal” without allowing gratuitous distasteful crap that just might border on defamation or child-porn? Gosh, how did the New York Times ever get as far as it got? It’s just inconceivable!
And the fact that he’s saying this to the BBC makes it even more laughable.
PS: Did it ever occur to this twit that publishing distasteful infantile crap — and becoming widely known for it — might hinder, rather than help, their growth to “universal platform for human discourse” status? This dustup is all I hear of Reddit, and I don’t feel any need to make use of them.
jhendrix: repeatedly calling something “free speech” doesn’t make it so, especially when you fail to back it up with anything resembling a coherent ConLaw argument. The words “free speech” are not a magickal incantation that changes the nature, legality, or effect of any action; nor do they automatically trump all other arguments or facts.
@Raging Bee
This is pretty well established law in the US. Will this do?
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers
Basically if you’re in a public space, you can take a picture of what you can see.
If you’re in a private property/business that is normally open to the public that does not have a sign posted somewhere expressly forbidding taking pictures, you’re free to take pictures there.
Translation: we will punish the bitches who try to fight back.
Exactly.
As much as I’m in favor of Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy is not one that is explicit in the constitution. The right to free speech is. So it isn’t surprising that when free speech and privacy conflict, free speech often trumps privacy.
Scote, what does taking upskirt photos of women or underage girls who are not consenting and def not agreeing to have that picture posted to the internet have to do with free speech?
I’d think that “upskirts” would be illegal, or at least they would be if you say had a camera on a device to go under a dress, but I don’t know the law there. I’d be shocked if that was somehow protected.
If it’s something taken from a odd angle, or just of someone bending over/wind catching something, or sitting in a way that a view gets such a shot…it’s probably still protected.
My understanding was that most of this was stuff from public spaces, beaches, or of people having to bend over or otherwise do something that would expose the downshirt/upskirt thing. You’ll forgive me for not going to the site and verifying this.
Scote:
Taking photos of people without their permission and publishing said photos (again, without permission) is ethically and morally wrong (and in some cases, legally wrong as well). It’s a statement that an individual has rights that supercedes those of another. Violating the privacy of others *does* cause harm. It’s a violation of a fundamental human right.
I don’t feel that degrading the religious beliefs of another individual causes them demonstrable harm. Sure, they can be distressed or even offended. But you can be distressed when someone tells you AGW is real (if you’re a climate change denier). You can be distressed when someone says “trickle down economics doesn’t work to stimulate the economy”. You can be distressed when someone says dowsing is BS. But that distress is quite unlikely to cause demonstrable harm to that individual (on a personal note, I also don’t agree with the mentality of “if you criticize my belief, you’re degrading me as a person”). More to the point, no one has the right to not be distressed or offended.
While religious views are often considered by an individual to be a central part of their identity, so long as the religious idea is criticized and the individual is not degraded (i.e. treated as inferior or less deserving of respect and/or equality), this is not comparable to the harm done by invading the privacy of others.
There’s also the question of the The Armor of God which has fostered in people the notion that you can’t/shouldn’t question religion. As I said above, you can criticize climate change deniers, screwed up economic policies and dowsing and that doesn’t degrade an individual. Those are ideas or beliefs held by individuals and when you make those ideas known to others you open them to criticism. People are far too accustomed to religious beliefs being off limits. That needs to stop. Religion is an idea about the world. One that is unsupported by anything other than a host of fallacious arguments and wishful thinking.
So all of that is to say:
“Yes, degrading specific people is not comparable to atheism”.
Raging Bee and others have already made the important point that legality morality, and so we can criticize Violentacrez or Reddit for their speech while still recognizing its legality.
I would go a step further. The whole point of protecting free speech is because we think that speech matters. That the views we express are reflections of ourselves. That our words have the power to influence others. (Note: I’m not saying that legally that is the only kind of speech that is protected. Frivolous and silly speech is protected, too, but mainly because we don’t trust the government to decide which speech is important and which isn’t. But if speech in general was unimportant, then we wouldn’t much care about protecting it.)
And therefore, people who take this uber-neutral position that we can’t condemn Reddit for the speech it publishes because ZOMG free speech! are missing the whole point. If you can’t judge Reddit harshly for the things it publishes, then you’re saying that nothing Reddit says matters, which also means that nothing you or anyone else says matters.
There is an argument to be made on behalf of providing an “open forum” for speakers of contrasting views. But then you have to do one of two things:
1) Allow everything that is legal.
2) Pick and choose which types of legal speech you will allow.
(1) is defensible for certain types of actors. Certainly it’s how most of us want internet service providers to behave. (By definition, it’s how the government must behave.) But Reddit has expressly declined option (1), by banning “doxxing.”
Once you’re into (2), you have to be prepared to justify the distinctions you’re drawing. If you ban “dirty words” but allow racist speech, that tells us something about your priorities. If you ban racist speech but not sexist or homophobic speech, that tells us something else. And if you ban speech that identifies creeps, but allow creeps to post creepy photos, that says something, too.
And when some of us comment on what exactly that says, we’re not just being consistent with free speech, we’re showing why speech matters.
As much as I’m in favor of Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy is not one that is explicit in the constitution.
I suppose you also think the US can’t have an air force because that’s not “explicit” in the Constitution either? Puh-lease. We all laughed that argument out the window when Michelle Bachmann tried it, and it’s no less laughable coming from you.
Conflicted
Im generally on your side but unless we make it illegal to take voyeuristic pictures in public what argument can be made and where do we stop? if Google provides a blogging tool is it their responsibility to take down posts that are misogynistic or if they have objectionable pictures ? What if the website uses Amazons storage does it become Amazons responsibility?
I would prefer social pressure putting an end to this sort of crap over hosting companies banning users /censoring content(because in the end anyone can host a website)
Offtopic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19973687
The Macquarie Dictionary describes misogyny as ”hatred of women”.
But editor Sue Butler says it will be expanded to ”entrenched prejudice against women” in the next edition.
Which is great!
jhendrix, I just had a look at the article you cited, and it does NOT support your assertion…
When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view. That includes pictures of federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police. Such photography is a form of public oversight over the government and is important in a free society.
Note that this does NOT include private citizens going about their business in public places.
Oh, and it also fails to specify what you may or may not do with photographs once you’ve taken them.
jhendrix @21:
IANAL and this is all IMO…
Some of what violentacrez (and others) posted on reddit were photos ripped from personal web sites – people’s facebook pages and such. I’m not sure the precedent applies to that.
1. They arguably had no right to reproduce the photograph.
2. Its not clear the original photo-taker obeyed the law in regards to privacy. IANAL but if they are reproducing an illegally-taken photograph, the reproduction is still illegal.
3. Me putting a picture of myself in a bathing suit on my private web site is not like going out in public in it. I still have some expectation of privacy in regards to that photograph. The degree is probably related to how much control I exercise over my website: if I let everyone in, no expectation. If I let only my friends in, some expectation. If I password protect it, high expectation.
4. Its not clear to me that reddit is doing anything to monitor or control their content in terms of illegally ripped pictures of the #1, #2, or #3 variety. IOW, they are not even making a good faith effort to try and keep their site legal. The fact that their users brag about posting pictures taken from other people’s website without their express permission is, IMO, a pretty clear indication that reddit is actively flaunting at least copywrite or fair use laws.
Has no one noticed that its hypocritical to ban doxing in the form of revealing who posters are but not ban the doxing done by posting photos of people? Sure it might take five or ten minutes to find out who someone is with just a photo but it isn’t impossible or even particularly difficult.
Raging Bee,
I’m sorry, but anything that is in plain view in that space can be photographed, that includes people.
I’m frankly shocked you’d try to make the argument that “anything in plain view” doesn’t consititue private citizens in a public space, how the hell do you think the Papparazzi work? Photos of celebrities or random people published daily on tabloids around the wrold?
Once you’re in public spaces, you’re fair game to be photographed legally.
Morally, I agree with you 100% on these cases. But legally, the above is free speech.
David123,
I did point that out a few posts ago. It’s totally hypocritical, but it’s reddits perrogative what it will and will not allow as they control the space.
Frankly, one of the only things available to people opposed to this is to yell to the high heavens about this hypocracy, and how morally wrong it is, and hopefully they will succumb to the pressure, or enough users will leave the site (probably not happening on the last one though).
Well, that’s pretty much exactly what’s happening. Social pressure is being applied to Reddit, to the participants in these forums, and to people who support their activities (even in the neutral sense).
Legal challenges to hosting/posting pictures are time-consuming and expensive, so barring a class action lawsuit*, there’s really not much of a remediating path via either civil suits or criminal enforcement**. But IANAL, so quite possible I’m wrong; I just think there are too many barriers for this to be an effective strategy.
And a personal +1 to screechymonkey. Great comment there.
* What a nightmare a CAL would be. How do you identify plaintiffs without crossing all sorts of ethical lines? Do you do PSAs asking people to surf the worst parts of the internet on the chance they might be a plaintiff? Oof.
** I should note that child pornography laws are an entirely different animal, and that the distribution of such materials is absolutely illegal and punishable. In this case, settled law pretty much establishes that speech is not protected, for either the pervs or the hosting entity.
@jhendrix:
Wrong. In fact, the state of Texas would emphatically disagree with you.
No comment on prosecutorial action by the state of Texas, but, you’re still wrong. Pretty sure a few other states out there have similar laws, but meh, I googled enough to make my point. If you’re in Texas, tread carefully with your photography. 😛
It’s right there in the tenth amendment.
PatrickG,
I’m not surprised to see Texas limit free speech in a way that would likely be struck down as unconstitutional if it was challenged. This is the same section that has the laws against homosexuality in Texas, which was struck down.
That is of course not enough to invalidate your point, but that’s my take on the situation. As you said, I’d question this laws enforcement. In fact I’m fairly certain that the statute is violated (particularly 2.A.i) by the press in Texas regularly.
This would be a good example of why I’ve bothered to post on this topic – because I fear about the freedom of speech being violated. It allows things that we don’t like, but it’s important because it lets unpopular or offensive speech (like articles criticizing religion) occur.
As I said, I’m not surprised to see puritanical Texas put a law like this in place. What I’m afraid of is that the left will “go authoritarian” and start abridging free speech becasue of this or the outcries over blasphemy that’s gone on internationally.
Sigh…
Could we for once have a discussion like this that doesn’t end up with people suggesting we throw Henri-Cartier Bresson in jail? (Google him ffs). The entire debate on the legality of photographing in public spaces is a huge derail here. Violentacrez was not a photographer. He was at best a devotee of questionable and creepy photography. The biggest legal snafu there is whether he and or reddit had the legal right to reproduce the images.
@ragingbee
There is an entirely legal (in most parts of the world) fucking art form called “Street Photography” that people have been practicing for as long as the camera has been around.
Don’t they teach art history anymore?
Some links
http://www.in-public.com/
http://www.street-photographers.com/
The same goes for photojournalism and documentary photography, both of which would be impossible endeavors in an environment where it was illegal to photograph people in public spaces.
IANAL but I do have a degree in commercial photography. I need your permission (in most parts of the US) if I were to use the photographs for commercial purposes, as in selling it to a stock company or an advertising agency. However I am well within my rights to display street photography in a gallery, sell prints, or publish a book of said photos without the permission of the subjects as long as all other relevant laws are observed (ie: Child Pornography, libel etc.) I have done 2 of those three things myself (no book, yet).
@PatrickG
The relevant part of that Texas law is section B. I would hope the burden of proof would be pretty high.
@ jhendrix:
Thanks for the civil response to my admittedly snarky post.
I agree with you that government action to restrict speech on the internet is highly problematic. I think we’re in basic agreement on this point. I’m much more an advocate of social pressure, and fully support the outing of Violentacrez/Brutsch as an ethical action.
However, I really feel that there’s a degree of hysteria amongst free speech defenders in discussions of the Reddit topic. What, may I ask, is the existential threat to free speech? Where, precisely, is the threat coming from? How, exactly, are impassioned blog debates being transformed into public policy? Why, really, do we think a law grossly transgressing personal liberty would have any chance of survival in light of groups from all sides assailing it?
The legal issue is hotly debated, and it’s an interesting topic, but I sincerely doubt anything is going to happen on that front. Thus, the fervent debate regarding free speech (in the context of Reddit!) seems to be happening in a space that does not noticeably overlap with reality. Where it does overlap, it seems to be more in a Texas-style “prurience” setting than a social pushback against exploitation of other people.
The blasphemy topic is another one entirely*, of course, but isn’t particularly relevant to this thread. In fact, the conflation of the two makes me wonder about your motives here.
As to the left going “authoritarian” w.r.t this case, I must give you a “Who, a How, and a HA!”. Who’s going to do it? How are they going to exert authority? And really, just HA!
Show me who the “left” is, show me how they’ll do it, and give me an equally sophisticated laugh in return. As for the discussions here, it seems to be that social pressure is the preferred avenue of attack. Outing (read: stripping anonymity with due cause), publicity, making this sort of shit just NOT OK. If someone’s seriously pushing for legislation or criminal enforcement (outside of issues that are already on the books) to restrict teh free speechez, then yeah, that might be troublesome. I haven’t seen it here, so I can’t really speak to that.
In short, show me how “the left” (and again, please define who exactly that is) is going to restrict free speech because of the behavior of Brutsch and Reddit.
* And that’s an issue, but it’s not restricted to one political viewpoint. I submit the victimization pathology of the Religious Right as evidence. We’re coming for their FREEDOM!
@ Lou Doench:
The law was posted mainly in snark; I merely wished to point out that some jurisdictions have in fact enacted laws that would very much apply to this scenario. Also, it’s (A) AND (B), not just (B)!
As I said in my previous comment, I’m in favor of social pressure as solution, not legal action (outside of the rather specific constraints you just outlined). So I agree with you, the legal questions are a derail.
I said in comment # 8 – four and a half hours ago – that the issue isn’t a legal one, it’s a moral one.
I’m finding this self-righteous “you can take a photo of anyone in public you want to and you can do anything with it you want to” quite unpleasant. You can also come up to me in public and say any nasty thing to me you want to. Again: so what?
Yes, paparazzi can do what they do. That doesn’t make it admirable!
Actually my experience of being cyberstalked has given me new levels of sympathy for people who are harassed by paparazzi. Yes, even Diana.
@Ophelia, I absolutely agree with you, the paparazzi are scum and their cavalier disregard for others in the pursuit of their “craft” gives the rest of us a bad name. But not all public photographers are paparazzi.
As I said, the legality of the photography involved here is inconsequential. The majority of the images Violentacrez and his ilk distributed were completely legal to take. It is the manner in which they were shared that is at issue, both legally and morally. Yet every time something like this comes up we end up going round and round about the legality and its especially irksome because… well ragingbee isn’t just talking about paparazzi and perverts in comment #30, zie is talking about me.
Lou – I know – and I do my damndest to head it off! I’m not talking about the law, I’m talking about the morality. I’m sooooooooo not interested in jhendrix’s “they can do whatever they want to with it.”
What an utter ass. As if it were about censorship or tastefulness.
Wong and Reddit need to get a clue. It’s about harm. It’s about being responsible citizens and refusing to host material, legal or not, that causes pain and suffering.
The internet is not comparable to meatspace! in that it’s so so easy to do harm without having to face consequences. The societal pressure to behave in meatspace – and there still is some, I checked – doesn’t exist online. Call a woman a slut in a bar and you’re likely to get your ass whupped. Online? It’s a sport. Online? You get followers.
I wear swimsuits at the beach. Sometimes my picture is taken. Sometimes the photos end up on Facebook. Big deal. If it becomes part of somebody’s masturbatory fantasy, I’ll likely never know. But if my photo is compiled with others, online, to share as part of a collection for people to use to get their jollies, I’ll probably find out about it. Probably some time after my family does.
I can’t even imagine how exposed and vulnerable those people felt.
@Ophelia – I’m sorry, my main reason for posting along those lines was that in your original post you said that their publishing of these photos online wasn’t free speech. I’m sorry, but it is.
@PatrickG
I similarly appreciate the civil response. I’m not exactly happy to be on the supposed side of Reddit continuing to host this trash, but I do value free speech as an absolute right, and up until now valued sites that were willing to “walk the walk” and host any legal free speech. FWIW, I also support the outing of Brutsch.
That said, I am coming around to some more nuance on the issue, largely based on the discussion here, along the lines that ibelieveindog@45 posted.
Technically speaking, the internet can guarantee a level of anonymity which can prevent one from facing the consequences of ones actions. As such, maybe there shouldn’t be a guarantee of a public online venue for all legal free speech. The problem is that with our current law, there can be if a website (like Reddit) wants there to be.
We can push back via boycotts or negative publicity, but that just pushes the problem back one step to the next company/site that just won’t give a shit (like Reddit currently is doing). That’s why I do think that a legal solution is potentially necessary.
“We will ban the posting of personal information”
But not when they take the form of photographs. So all we have to do is print out the information and photograph it.
Sorted!
If so-called “free speech” requires that unwitting and unwilling individuals are turned into pornographic objects, then fuck “free speech”.
Would anyone like to defend the right of individuals to distribute images of naked children harvested from random websites as free speech?
We – probably universally – already restrict this type of “free speech” by banning child pornography, by preventing people from installing cameras in restrooms and changing rooms and distributing the results.
The idea that anyone would change their argument simply because a woman walks out of a stall (private) and onto the street (public) is ridiculous. Suddenly I can stick a camera wherever I want to for my own masturbatory pleasure?
Free speech is about preventing the systematic suppression of political ideas, not about allowing every dangerous individual to transmit whatever lewd, degrading, and harmful material they please.
@Bernard
The issue is unfortunately way more complex than you’re making it.
Most of what Brutsch did was take publicly available photos and link to them, or just repost them.
The problem is that most people don’t realize when they upload images to things like Facebook, they’re making those photos public. I could link publicly available pictures of tons of people on Facebook as an example. There are ones of Ophelia, Matt Dillahunty, or any host of people with publicly searchable FB pages.
What Brutsch and most others like him did was the online equivalent of cat calling, saying “hey look at this!” and pointing at something that was already available for the public to see.
In terms of your argument on photos of people taken in public spaces, that’s a debate that’s gone on for quite some time, and effectively it’s the paparazzi on a grander scale. The issue is already “in the news” or being discussed with photos of Kate Middleton, etc. The creepers are just applying that same “freedom” to anyone.
And I fully admit that’s a bit terrifying.
We know this. The point is that it’s morally wrong.
I think the problem is that “it’s free speech” gets used in a way that obfuscates. It’s used ambiguously, as a moral claim that’s actually just a factual claim.
Picture this: you witness an adult telling a small child she is ugly, stupid, smelly, horrible. You’re appalled; you (however timidly) intervene. The adult yells “it’s free speech!”
You would feel the point had been missed, surely.
I’m with Bernard. Fuck free speech. I don’t care. Not everything that’s legal is morally acceptable.
I acknowledge that. Many would-be free speech advocates do not.
It is precisely because of the fuzzy lines that no blanket ideal will do.
Sort of. It is probably more akin to peeping in through undrawn bedroom curtains; the targets probably assumed that they had more privacy than they really did. Their expectation wasn’t unrealistic, but they were probably technologically naive in their execution. That isn’t their fault.
It certainly is, which is why I wouldn’t extend the privilege and power of anonymity to such creeps, wherever possible.
It is a wrong that is difficult to define without exception, but which we can often recognise in action. As responsible onlookers, we should intervene.
Marginalising such wrong-doers may lead a hard core to take further steps to protect their identities, but it may also shame others into realising the wrongness of their actions. It certainly demonstrates that such exploitation will not be tolerated.
I would rather give up my own anonymity than allow others to abuse theirs, even as I fight to protect the anonymity of those who require it more than I.
I would be happy to out people using my real name to do so.
Actually, in Texas it is illegal to upload a photo of someone taken without their consent if the purpose of that photo is sexual gratification. I’m not debating the rights and wrongs of that law – just saying that it absolutely is illegal.
emilydietle,
There is nothing illegal about outing a person. It too is free speech. So it may not be popular free speech, but that’s the same argument reddit users are using. Either, both the victims of creep shots and the poster of creep shots have privacy rights or neither do. You can’t claim that it’s ok to post creep shots because free speech trumps privacy, and then turn around and say you can’t dox a person because privacy trumps free speech.
Personally, I don’t think either should be illegal, but in both creep shots* and doxxing the victim has the right for a civil damages, if applicable. If you do either, then you should be willing to face the consequences. In this case, Violentarcez ruined his life. I feel absolutely no empathy towards him.
* – Places were there is an assumed expectation of privacy (bathroom, changing room own home, or up-skirt pictures), I think would still be illegal. Underage child picture are iffy, because I think it is hard to define sexualize in a way that it would be clear. Still anyone positing those kinds of pictures should be outed. Free speech isn’t always free.)
@Bernard & Ophelia
Part of the reason this gets into “Free Speech!” territory is that while I can completely agree that this is morally wrong, the fact that it’s “legal” means that from a social enforcement perspective, it’s technically impossible.
Sure, escalate away and out some of the people. Eventually you hit the wall of “I’m making money and providing a platform for Free Speech(!) so I’m not taking the content down”, and the identities of the people involved can’t be found due to the combination of technology+legality of the situation.
At that point, I fear that there will be a move by those of us trying to stop this behavior to abridge free speech that can have negative consequences in other areas.
In terms of giving Reddit “bad publicity”, good luck. I may very well delete my account there, but the majority of the people who browse it (let alone have accounts) probably don’t even know about this issue.
I have no idea what that first paragraph means.
As far as I’m concerned you’ve derailed two threads on this subject in order to talk about what you think is important.
But to not do something would at least be an abrogation of personal responsibility. The internet is nothing more than a synthesis of personal contributions.
That first paragraph means, “You can never, ever change anything about the world, so shut up already.” That might not be what’s intended, but it’s certainly what that, and most of the other “free speech!!!1!!” comments on these posts mean.
Of course, it’s bullshit. That’s why it just keeps getting repeated instead of someone actually engaging with anyone else’s points.
I’m frankly shocked you’d try to make the argument that “anything in plain view” doesn’t consititue private citizens in a public space…
I’m frankly surprised you’d equate people with things. Did you not notice that the article you cite mentioned certain people separately (cops on duty), and gave a specific reason for it? That kind of implies that “things” does not include people. Or did you even read the article at all?
…how the hell do you think the Papparazzi work? Photos of celebrities or random people published daily on tabloids around the wrold?
“Celebrities” are not treated the same in law as private persons; they generally have less expectation of privacy, and a harder time suing for slander or libel.
Also, you’re still not addressing the question of what is done with photos after they’re taken. That’s the main point here, and you’re dodging it. I gotta say, your legal reasoning is a bit shabby.
Hey, I can dox if I want because the information is gathered from public sources. QUIT INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH!!!
If they didn’t want to be outted they shouldn’t be exposing their information to the public.
Part of the reason this gets into “Free Speech!” territory is that while I can completely agree that this is morally wrong, the fact that it’s “legal” means that from a social enforcement perspective, it’s technically impossible.
This paragraph doesn’t even make sense. How many non-sequiturs are in this one sentence?
I agree with Stephanie: it’s nothing more than a stupid bully-apologist runing away from a tough moral issue by saying “You can’t do anything about it, so shut up!”
I know you are being hyperbolic with that, but: I would think that very few people using pseudonyms or other faked identifiers want to be outed, which is why outing can be used as a deterrent in the first place.
The “first paragraph” means that technology combined with the laws related to what information ISP’s/sites have to divulge will make any social enforcement pretty much impossible.
If you want to change the world so that every ISP will just submit IP to user logs for any request of info, and every site will publish the IP of the poster publicly, and every proxy, TOR node, and VPN service is shutdown or forced to turn over logs for non-illegal uses – then sure, you can have social enforcement.
Until that happens, it’s near trivial for any source of this crap to hide themselves from social enforcement. That’s purely based on how the internet works.
And even if you made those changes to stop this kind of thing, that in itself will have unintended negative consequences for people in ways I’m sure you won’t like.
@Ophelia, if you feel I’ve derailed the threads, well I disagree (I think this side of it is central), but I do respect the fact that it’s your blog and I’ll refrain from commenting further on this (or any other) post.
@ scote (#23):
As much as I’m in favor of Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy is not one that is explicit in the constitution.
Yes, it is. It’s called the Ninth Amendment.
I’m frankly shocked you’d try to make the argument that “anything in plain view” doesn’t consititue private citizens in a public space…
I’m frankly surprised I have to remind you that private citizens have rights and things don’t. That’s why “things” does not include people, dumbass.
@ jhendrix (#25):
You’ll forgive me for not going to the site and verifying this.
No, I won’t. You’re defending it; you should know what it is you’re defending.
The “first paragraph” means that technology combined with the laws related to what information ISP’s/sites have to divulge will make any social enforcement pretty much impossible.
In other words, Stephanie was right.
@ jhendrix (#17):
What, then, is /r/creepshots saying? What message is it trying to convey?
@Ophelia
that the issue isn’t a legal one, it’s a moral one.
Yes it is. But the morality of a user like violentacrez or other Reddit users is substantially different, imo, from the morality behind the actions of an organization that essentially hosts content – and I take this post as a criticism of Reddit rather than of the users (for which there is no disagreement).
The thing has always been where are you willing to draw the line. To be morally consistent you’d have to say that for e.g. if Violentacrez tweeted a link to a picture hosted on Flickr then Twitter and Flickr are both morally in the wrong if they don’t ban such behavior or posts. If Violentacrez then emails a link to his friend using GMail then Google should automatically block it and so on. And then you’d have to do the same for racist remarks , neo-nazism , religious extremism (or perhaps anti- religious extremism).
We can hold people who comment approvingly on the SlimePit as morally responsible for their behavior but I dont think you can hold Scienceblogs morally responsible.
Counter arguments are welcome because I don’t like my conclusions.
Actually, we could, and we did. They had adopted a standard for how they wanted to be known and a policy about posting that was intended to meet that standard. They didn’t live up to the standard they set for themselves.
We pointed out that this means they should not be known as they wanted to be, that they were, in fact, something other than what they claimed. They fixed that by telling Abbie that the material they didn’t want to have reflect on their reputation needed to go away. It did. Problem solved.
Which is it, behavior or posts? A user posting content to which they own the rights on Flickr is very different than someone without those rights posting it on a site with a different purpose. Also, the behavior of tweeting or linking something changes depending on who the recipient is. We don’t have to pretend they’re the same thing because the technology is the same.
To be morally consistent you’d have to…
It’s a good thing to be morally consistent. But sometimes we have to act to remedy an obvious injustice, without necessarily waiting for a “morally consistent” statement of principles to emerge first. Sometimes “But you have to be consistent…” becomes (intentionally or not) just another excuse for not doing anything about an injustice that’s right in front of our faces.
Also, if one has the power to remedy an injustice in one area, but not in another, “consistency” might become impossible. In this case, each site owner is responsible for policing their site, regardless of how well someone else polices theirs.
Yes, I strongly disagree that you can’t hold (for example) Scienceblogs morally responsible. They have a brand. They don’t pretend to be just a random collection of fun stuff. They don’t publish just any blogger who comes along. If one of their bloggers suddenly starts posting a lot of racist crap, they have some responsibility, especially if it continues. The same applies to homophobic crap, sexist crap, xenophobic crap, etc.
@Stephanie,Ophelia
They had adopted a standard for how they wanted to be known and a policy about posting that was intended to meet that standard.
But that’s a different argument (if they didn’t have a standard would it be morally acceptable?). Morally acceptable is unrelated to conforming to stated policy. In any case I don’t hold Scienceblogs responsible for ERV and you do (and Scienceblogs agreed with you but no much as to stop ERV from posting there altogether), but neither of those is a compelling argument.
A user posting content to which they own the rights on Flickr
Someone uploads a creepshot to flickr. Violentacrez tweets about it. Violentacrez Develops a following of similar minded creeps. Whats the difference?
We don’t have to pretend they’re the same thing because the technology is the same.
A platform is provided for users to put up stuff. Blogger/Facebook/twitter/youtube are not much different from reddit.
If one of their bloggers suddenly starts posting a lot of racist crap,
You can find a lot of blog posts exactly like this on blogger. Are we going to write similar requests to Larry Page asking Google for preventive steps? (Id bet we’d get similar responses from most organizations – they’d only comply when there is a threat of being successfully sued or if its illegal and would stay out of morally unacceptable arguments).
@Raging Bee
Sometimes “But you have to be consistent…” becomes (intentionally or not) just another excuse for not doing anything about an injustice that’s right in front of our faces.
Two things though – You can criticise the people so you don’t have to “do nothing” and I agree that free speech doesn’t mean I can say whatever the heck I want without consequences. We can and should condemn the behavior of people like violentacrez.
Secondly it does matter if you are morally inconsistent. It means your reasoning is wrong somewhere(potentially even even your view that there is an injustice). That probably matters to you too.
Ophelia,
I don’t think it’s fair to accuse jhendrix of derailing, you yourself brought up the legality:
“It’s not free speech (it’s not speech at all, for a start). It’s not some glorious liberal principle you get to “stand for.” It’s rapey invasive violation of other people.”
If you’re really conceding the legality, then I would edit your post to focus strictly on the moral issues.
I also think that you unfairly mischaracterize the Doxxing quote at the end. The concern is that allowing anyone’s private information to be posted has repeatedly enabled abusers
As far as the morality goes, it seems clear that you think that it’s hypocritical of reddit to take down ‘doxxing’ posts but not upskirt shots. I think that there are two clear differences that relate directly to the morality of taking down either:
1) It’s very easy to determine whether or not someone has posted personal information. If reddit were to make a policy of taking down public pictures of other people, we might easily agree that upskirt pictures need to be taken down, but what about pictures that show cleavage? How do you determine the intent of the initial photographer vs the person who re-posts? Practically speaking, where and how do they draw the line, and how do they enforce it?
2) Posted photographs do not have a history of resulting in the subject becoming the victim of abuse. Posted personal information has.
Given those differences I don’t think that Reddit is being more hypocritical than they are being practical, however repugnant I find the practice of posting upskirt photos.
@Ophelia, if you feel I’ve derailed the threads, well I disagree (I think this side of it is central), but I do respect the fact that it’s your blog and I’ll refrain from commenting further on this (or any other) post.
Translation: *FLOUNCE*
You can criticise the people so you don’t have to “do nothing” and I agree that free speech doesn’t mean I can say whatever the heck I want without consequences. We can and should condemn the behavior of people like violentacrez.
Sometimes criticism isn’t enough. Actual wrongdoing has to be FOUGHT and CORRECTED, not just criticized. Criticizing a bully doesn’t mean shit if he’s still beating up on people and getting away with it.
Secondly it does matter if you are morally inconsistent. It means your reasoning is wrong somewhere…
Not necessarily. It could be because we’re still in a stage of reacting to injustice in a piecemeal fashion, and haven’t yet widened the campaign to include all battles. EVERY attempt to right an injustice starts out like that: people respond to individual incidents first, then over time their awareness expands to create a comprehensive picture of what’s happening. Some inconsistency is inevitable as a result.
proxer: by “legality,” do you mean strictly criminal liability? Because there’s another option that’s not being discussed here: CIVIL liability. Private persons have sued and won on grounds of unauthorized use of their images. (Also, the law affords more protection to minors than to adults.)
Here’s an example: back in the ’70s or ’80s, a woman and a girl (her daughter IIRC) consented to be photographed for an advertizement. Then a neo-nazi group took that photo and used it in an ad for their cause. The woman sued the nazis, and won, because they had used her image without her consent for a cause she did not share; and possibly because the nazis’ use of her face was defamatory to her.
So yes, there may well be a legal avenue of recourse for the people whose images were misused in these subreddits.
dshetty, what is your argument? What is it you think we’re doing with respect to Reddit? You’re nitpicking over details and consistency between…something and something, but not the things you actually seem to be talking about when we address what you’ve had to say about those.
Reddit has a self-image that it’s trying very hard to project to others (see the OP). We’re telling them they’re full of shit. We’re telling them and the world what they’re actually doing. What is that morally inconsistent with aside from some thoughts in your head about things that haven’t happened and that you’re not defining clearly?
I don’t think anyone is claiming that any of the actions of this Violentacrez guy were moral. Of course they weren’t! He was taking pleasure in, and perpetuating the victimization of others…not moral.
But so what!? Reddit has no obligation to the moral preferences of freethoughtblogs commenters. The most we can do is say that it’s a nasty place and avoid it. But as soon as people start calling for the law to be changed to stop protecting speech they don’t like, they lose my interest and respect. Since there is no way that all people can agree on a moral standard by which all speech must be held, anyone who values their own rights has to demand that others’ rights are also protected. All others. As long as redditt is willing to host something, as long as it doesn’t violate federal child porn laws, and as long as no laws are breached in the attainment of the item of speech in question…there is nothing any of us can do except say that this “speech” is personally offensive. Anyone who says we should have laws that allow us to go further may as well forfeit their own speech rights because “offensive” means different things to different people.
But so what!? Reddit has no obligation to the moral preferences of freethoughtblogs commenters. The most we can do is say that it’s a nasty place and avoid it. But as soon as people start calling for the law to be changed to stop protecting speech they don’t like, they lose my interest and respect.
Obviously, we never had your respect in the first place. Now go and flounce back to your libertardian treehouse.
@ Raging Bee,
I’m aware of civil recourse, I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know that it applies to photos posted to reddit, but if you could show that id does, I bet the reddit lawyers would love to know and that might change their position.
I wish you had addressed my other points though.
@Ophelia,
I really enjoy much of your writing, and it is with no small degree of respect that I say that I think that this post has missed the mark. I think it’s easy to get caught up in the wrongness of the ‘upskirt’ sub-reddit and lose sight of the larger framework (legal *and* moral) in which the Reddit team is working.
@jhendrix,
That *was* a bit of a flounce. I’ve appreciated your contribution here, and I think that Ophelia’s comments would be missing an important voice if you left.
proxer @ 74 – no, I didn’t “bring up the legality.” The passage you quote doesn’t do that.
Deepak, Scienceblogs isn’t the same kind of thing as blogger. As I said, Scienceblogs doesn’t publish just whatever comes along. It’s not just a platform.
proxer – look, I said “it’s not free speech” in response to Reddit’s self-admiring “We stand for free speech… we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits.” I wasn’t saying “it’s not free speech therefore it’s illegal.” I was saying it doesn’t belong under the heading “free speech” as a liberal value. It doesn’t qualify as the kind of thing Reddit gets to pat itself on the back for “standing for.” Free speech nothing; they mean money.
I hate that kind of self-glorifying bullshit. It’s like that goon “ElevatorGATE” constantly calling himself a “brave hero.”
The post is calling out self-glorifying bullshit coupled with stupid callousness about harm to other people. It’s not saying let’s make everything illegal.
@Opehlia
I agree , I only brought up Scienceblogs because I wouldn’t call them responsible for whatever happened on ERV.(PZ has an agreement too with scienceblogs I guess where stated policy conflicts with what we think is acceptable).
@Stephanie
I’m assuming you want Reddit to do something about users like Violentacrez and creepshots and similarly themed stuff. Lets say Reddit says yes this is rapey privacy invasive stuff but unless this is illegal we have no intention of policing user behavior. Then if you still want them to do something, you have to think , as Ophelia says, this is a moral matter, not a legal one, correct(which i agree with)? So then make a case that its is morally wrong for Reddit to allow users like Violentacrez to continue and apply it in general to similar platforms and see if the case holds. I cant make a good one- you seem to think its self – evident.
I think it’s easy to get caught up in the wrongness of the ‘upskirt’ sub-reddit and lose sight of the larger framework (legal *and* moral) in which the Reddit team is working.
Yeah, we’re such emotional ninnies, getting all emotional about the possibility that innocent people might be hurt by the actions of assholes; and we so often lose sight of IMPORTANT RATIONAL stuff like the “framework” that Reddit uses to dodge responsibility. That’s chicks for you, getting all upset about people and misdirecting us men away from dispassionate nuts-and-bolts rationalizations — oops, I mean rationality.
dshetty, I want Reddit to stop trying to wrap itself in flags and rainbows and acting like what they’re doing for profit is a civic virtue. I want them to stop pretending that the only thing that matters is the people who bring them money. I want them to stop pretending they’re taking some kind of stand for the greater good by sucking up to guys like Violentacrez and the creepers and pretending their victims don’t exist outside as anything but some abstract principle. I want them to stop trying to claim the good while distancing themselves from bad.
How fucking hard is that to understand?
So the government is allowed to restrict free speech via the law, but we can’t take action to prevent harm if it falls beyond the reach of the law? You’re happy with one type of absolute restriction on free expression, but not with social activism which merely erodes a platform of hate/abuse/exploitation?
The law generally has to be framed in specific terms which do not allow it to arbitrate morally – although it worth noting that some legal systems do, as in England & Wales with the Obscene Publications Acts. These are sometimes unfortunately prone to illiberal application, but still have a scope to judge the moral quality of speech. Not every Western/liberal nation has such a broad statute guaranteeing free speech as does the US. Legalistic arguments based around American constitutionally protected speech fail for that reason alone. The internet reaches beyond borders.
Where would your argument go if a nation decided to decriminalize child pornography? Don’t pretend you aren’t making moral judgements by hiding behind the law.
I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know that it applies to photos posted to reddit, but if you could show that id does, I bet the reddit lawyers would love to know and that might change their position.
Really? I’m betting they’d just keep on mindlessly droning “We stand for free speech” until someone actually filed a suit and showed he had the money to make a real fight of it.
Posted photographs do not have a history of resulting in the subject becoming the victim of abuse. Posted personal information has.
Sometimes, posting a photo IS abuse. Also, your image is personal information, and it can be used to locate you, just like any other bits of personal information. Your attempts to excuse Reddit’s callousness are starting to sound…desperate.
“Posted photographs do not have a history of resulting in the subject becoming the victim of abuse. Posted personal information has.”
What.
Have you heard of Amanda Todd? In case you haven’t, she committed suicide due to bullying resulting from the abuse she received after having pictures of herself posted around social media sites.
@Stephanie
Ok – If Reddit drops all pretense and says we are in it for the money and
we don’t care two hoots for free speech would that be the end of the matter for you? (I’d bet the answer is no – I’d guess that you actually do want Reddit to ban such users and such content and you feel Reddit is morally culpable if they don’t).
But Ill drop the matter here.
No, see, you’re not dropping the matter. You’re telling me you don’t believe me about something I just told you. That’s a very different thing.
And fuck you.
…I’d guess that you actually do want Reddit to ban such users and such content and you feel Reddit is morally culpable if they don’t
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
One more time for good measure: Fuck you, dshetty.
Why would I need more than that? Why would honesty from Reddit about their mission and their priorities be anything other than game-changing? Why would I need anything more than for them to tell everyone, including themselves, “Yeah, we don’t give a fuck whose privacy gets invaded if that person isn’t lining our pockets and doing a bunch of our work for free”? If you don’t think that kind of honest look at what they’re doing would make a difference in the world, you’re hopelessly cynical as well as gratuitously insulting.
@raging Bee
Not intentional. My point was Stephanie’s stated how fucking hard is it to understand doesn’t match what i think her the end goal.
@Stephanie
You’re telling me you don’t believe me about something I just told you. That’s a very different thing.
No. See above. I already said at the start Im generally with Ophelia (that Redditt tried to downplay the incident and make it something that its not). However Im also concluding that you will not be satisfied with Reddit merely acknowledging that yes its more than distasteful and yes money plays a hand in our decisions. If I am not mistaken then I expect you to withdraw your needless abuse. if I am , then I apologise – i did not mean to imply that you were also not irritated by Reddit’s statement.
Exactly.
We already know that Reddit was only too happy to allow free speech to be curtailed when it was Gawker links – the supposedly free speech it stands by is in stark contrast to that which it doesn’t.
What’s your problem, dshetty? You did say “Counter arguments are welcome because I don’t like my conclusions.” Don’t you like the counter-arguments we gave you?
I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that anonymous speech is also worth protecting. Here’s why: imagine an atheist from the deep south who blogs anonymously, and who is doxxed and loses his job. Does anyone think the guy who outs him is doing something noble?
Obviously blogging and posting bikini shots of teenagers are not morally on the same level, but the principle should be the same – if you speak anonymously, you should have some expectation that your speech will remain anonymous, because to allow arbitrary doxing will inevitably create chilling effects. Remember the debate around google+ and facebook’s real name policies? How many people here were arguing that allowing anonymity was an important feature of the internet, and what’s changed since then?
Anonymous speech is worth protecting other things being equal (as the philosophers say). But it’s not an absolute. It’s not worth protecting for the sake of persecuting and harassing people, for instance.
@Raging Bee
Don’t you like the counter-arguments we gave you?
Go fuck yourself isn’t high on the list of counter arguments I like – YMMV.
There are specific points being stated by Ophelia et al that I don’t disagree with (e.g. the behavior of violentacrez, the statement of Reddit which downplays what happened etc) so you don’t need to convince me there.
The only counter argument I asked for was whether you can hold Reddit morally responsible for behavior of its users on Reddit(as well as extend that argument to platforms in general). When you want Reddit to ban users or content thats what you are asking for.
That counter argument has not been made as far as I can see.
1) Reddit is a for-profit company.
2) Reddit generates income by providing a platform for user-generated content.
3) Reddit terms and conditions prohibit certain types of content.
4) Reddit appoints moderators to control content.
5) Reddit therefore generates profit from user-generated content which is already moderated.
Given that, why shouldn’t Reddit be morally responsible for the behaviour of its users?
Of course, you could say the same thing about free speech. And we don’t protect free speech as an absolute – ‘”fire” in a crowded theatre being the canonical example, but also libel, incitement to murder, and, yes, harassment, are not protected speech. I don’t see why the same standard shouldn’t apply, and as you said earlier, nothing violentacrez did would have fallen outside the category of free speech.
Incidentally, to the guy who said there should be no expectation of privacy on the internet – I’d be very uncomfortable saying that to a gay teenager who came out in an online forum, and then got publicly outed.
@Bernard
Is your point that the moderation already present in reddit makes it different from say a facebook/twitter/youtube/blogger/wordpress situation(which too have types of permissible content)? The for profit seems to be irrelevant to me (if they didnt make money out of it would it be ok?)
Interesting comments thread! (Got here via the reference by Pharyngula, obviously not a regular commenter.)
What needs to be kept in mind is what screechymonkey said: Reddit’s excuse for permitting Brutsch to post is that everything he did was legal. (And if you read Chen’s article, you’ll see that Reddit was relying Brutsch to report things which weren’t, which is kind of icky in itself.) If that is the only standard for what can and can’t be posted on Reddit, then that’s… well, “fine” is maybe the wrong word, but “we can work with that”. It just means we should be avoiding Reddit and encouraging others to avoid it as well.
But the minute Reddit turns around and says “doxxing” is bad, it means that they have abandoned “any which is legal is okay”. We can then, with perfect justice, demand to know why letting self-proclaimed perverts and trolls post their stuff is okay, but posting investigative journalism is not, and advertise their hypocrisy when they display it.
Yeah, sure, what Brutsch did was either legal or so difficult to prove illegal that he will never be prosecuted (and where there is no prosecution, there is no crime). So what? The argument isn’t “the government should swoop down and force Reddit to close up shop” (or, at least, it shouldn’t be); it’s “we, as responsible citizens, have a responsibility to work against Reddit as long as their standards keep them protecting people like Brutsch.”
I feel I need to expand upon my earlier comment. The only time speech should be limited by law is when it is extreme enough to threaten the life and/or autonomy of children, the mentally ill, and others who are at the bottom of a serious power differential. Things like child pornography, deliberately outing closeted gay teens in wildly embarrassing ways, and speech incessantly directed at one person to the exclusion of all others where that person cannot avoid the abuse (i.e. harassment)…these are all already illegal. If there is speech on Reddit that breaks the law, the law should deal with it, and Reddit will have to comply. I am assuming that none of Violentacrez’s speech crossed that threshold.
Otherwise, yes, we can and should criticize Reddit for allowing speech we consider immoral, speech that operates at the threshold of what would be considered legal. But it is still their website, paid for with their money, and they can permit all technically legal speech, or restrict some speech in a hypocritical move (banning “doxxing”, or whatever). Their choice. I think they’re wrong. But it’s still their right.
@Raging Bee
“Also, your image is personal information, and it can be used to locate you.”
True, but that doesn’t address my points concerning pictures. If you’re going to call my arguments desperate, then please accurately represent them.
My points concerning pictures were twofold:
1) Photos posted to reddit are not commonly used by would-be abusers to locate and harass subjects. Personal information is. Under the question of morality, the consequences of each are significantly different, so I believe that we have to treat the act of censoring either differently.
2) Policing photos of people taken in public places is so morally and practically difficult that the only feasible solution would be to ban all photos taken without the subject’s consent for re-posting. This would have a clear chilling effect on all of reddit, which would undermine the main goal of the site.
If I may make a request, please don’t needlessly cast aspersions on my arguments or intentions. I am discussing these things in good faith, and I trust that most people here are as well, including you.
@Ophelia,
I’m trying to understand your position a little better, and I can’t make sense of this piece:
“I wasn’t saying “it’s not free speech therefore it’s illegal.” I was saying it doesn’t belong under the heading “free speech” as a liberal value. It doesn’t qualify as the kind of thing Reddit gets to pat itself on the back for “standing for.””
That’s a valid distinction that I think is clearly not made in your original article. Not as in, “it’s ambiguous”, but as in, I would be surprised if anyone reading it came away with that understanding.
It sounds like you’re more opposed to the tone and rhetoric of Mr. Wong than the actual policy, is that right? I agree with you there, to a point. He definitely engages in some grandstanding, and I have no doubt that there are financial considerations here at play.
That said, I think it’s a mistake to paint the CEO of a social enterprise such as reddit with a broad brush. I’m very certain that Yishan spends a *lot* of his time thinking about free speech. Posts to his site regularly cross the lines of both legality and morality. I also have no doubt that his ambition is to somehow turn reddit into a “universal platform for human discourse”. I doubt he’ll get there from where Reddit is now… but I don’t doubt his intentions.
I guess my question is, if he’d cut out the grandstanding about “universal platform for human discourse” and said something along the lines of “posts that can cause embarrassment, or are emotionally damaging” instead of “distasteful”, would you still object to the policy?
@The Vicar
I think you raise a solid question. While I’d rather see reddit take a *more* moral stance than they do, I think that they can give a rational response:
“the minute Reddit turns around and says “doxxing” is bad, … they have abandoned “any which is legal is okay”. We can then … demand to know why letting self-proclaimed perverts and trolls post their stuff is okay, but posting investigative journalism is not, and advertise their hypocrisy when they display it.”
Someone else from FTB mentioned that “it’s a question of the potential and actual harm”. I think it’s clear that doxxing has frequently resulted in abuse of the subject through phone calls, emails, blackballing at places of employment, vandalism etc. This is potential harm frequently realized.
Pictures, on the other hand, rarely (if ever?) result in that kind of harm.
Also, I’m not sure that there’s enough evidence that money is the dominant factor in reddit’s decision to not ban upskirt posts, for a couple reasons:
1) They’ve banned the ‘jailbait’ etc. subreddits – so they already ‘lost’ that (tiny?) portion of their audience that only went to reddit for that.
2) They have the ‘gonewild’ section, and others, where anyone wishing to ogle or be ogled can do so with wild abandon, so the ‘pervert’ market is still there.
Don’t be dishonest. That wasn’t a counter-argument. It was a response to you claiming I was lying.
@proxer:
This is, on its face, a logical argument. Which is why it’s a pity that Reddit isn’t making it; instead, they’re just falling back on “but… but… free speach!!!!1!”.
That being said, though, you are presupposing that one cannot create broad classes of behavior under which people like Brutsch could be made exempt from protection. This is not true. Even in legal terms, which as suggested is the bare minimum standard, there are cases in which a person is allowed to retain an anonymous identity — whistleblowers, for instance, or victims of blackmail who are pressing charges. If the law can allow some people to remain anonymous and not others, then I think an ethical person who is constructing a system which respects legal niceties can certainly build on that to declare that anonymity should generally be respected, but that a certain class of people should not be allowed to block the collapse of their anonymity.
If you permit this distinction, then I would suggest that the basis, maybe the entirety, of such a class would be: those who use anonymity to violate the privacy of others. “Do unto others”, after all, dates back much further than Christianity, even if — as Robertson Davies once pointed out — we all get squeamish when it seems to be operating in reverse. (And, in fact, in this case Brutsch was treated better by Chen than Brutsch’s victims were treated by Brutsch. Chen made a point of calling him up, talking to him, and giving him advance notice that the identity of Violentacrez was going to be revealed, and also Chen did it without himself using anonymity to mask his own identity at that time.)
(Incidentally, on a somewhat related topic: I would entirely support both a legal and a social agreement that images and text uploaded to social media sites would no longer be considered to have any expectation of privacy whatsoever. At this point, privacy settings in social media are considered a joke in the IT/computer industry, and there’s more than enough precedent to expect people to realize that “private” really isn’t, and “delete” really doesn’t. We might as well formalize it so at least we can tell people “you were warned”.) (On the other hand, given the way that there’s a continual stream of news stories of people, usually teenagers, who sent nude photos to their S.O.’s and then were amazed, usually post-breakup, to find those images made public, perhaps I’m giving to much credit to the concept of “you were warned”.)
I’m not trying to make any sort of abstract argument as to why Reddit is morally culpable for the content, I was primarily showing the chain by which Reddit is responsible for and already controls content*.
After establishing that, the moral argument becomes as simple as a responsibility to ensure that one doesn’t profit from harming others.
I don’t need to make any argument about other platforms or about not-for-profit organisations.
(*Although the form and extent of moderation of content undermines the flimsy argument that Reddit is protecting free speech in any grand sense; the management, moderators, and content producers aren’t even consistent in that regard. Lest we forget, Brutsch was policing threads himself which is why his behaviour was tolerated.)
Completely agree. Most user-run websites (like wikipedia, or even the slimepit as someone else mentioned) have some checks and balances on content. Its not difficult to do. If reddit isn’t, this is an active choice on their part, not some result of necessity or resource limitations.
While it may be legal, its sort of like someone creating an offshore bank, intentionally avoiding all traceability or identification routines, and then saying “money laundering? What money laundering? We have no evidence that any such conduct is going on – this is just a bank!” It just doesn’t wash.
Reddit’s decision not to put any sort of content monitoring in place when such tools are easy, available, and commonly used by similar sites means that they (reddit’s managers) don’t see the nasty content as some unavoidable consequence of a free speech site. They see it as business they want to pursue. By their management choices they invite it, revel in it, and show their desire to make money off it.
I feel I need to expand upon my earlier comment…
Yes, because when your original comment was shown to be abysmally stupid, the proper response is to “expand” in it, and make the stupidity BIGGER.
The only time speech should be limited by law is when it is extreme enough to threaten the life and/or autonomy of children, the mentally ill, and others who are at the bottom of a serious power differential.
So slander, libel, defamation, breach of confidentiality, invasion of privacy, and other gross abuses of freedom of speech are all perfectly okay, as long as no one is actually KILLED? Do you really have any idea what you’re talking about?
True, but that doesn’t address my points concerning pictures.
Yes, you jackass, it does.
Photos posted to reddit are not commonly used by would-be abusers to locate and harass subjects.
Tell that to Amanda Todd’s family. (And bring a hidden camera so we can watch their reaction to your gems of wis-dumb.)
Policing photos of people taken in public places is so morally and practically difficult that the only feasible solution…
For the third time, moron, this isn’t about the TAKING of photos, it’s about what is done with the photos after they’re taken. You really seem to have a problem with this distinction.
I’m very certain that Yishan spends a *lot* of his time thinking about free speech.
And you know this how? (And does he do all this thinking before or after his daily spot of tea?)
Reddit’s decision not to put any sort of content monitoring in place when such tools are easy, available, and commonly used by similar sites means that they (reddit’s managers) don’t see the nasty content as some unavoidable consequence of a free speech site. They see it as business they want to pursue. By their management choices they invite it, revel in it, and show their desire to make money off it.
Emphatically agreed. And this is why criticism alone is not sufficient. They need to face real consequences for behavior that could prove very harmful — as the Amanda Todd incident starkly shows.
If I may make a request, please don’t needlessly cast aspersions on my arguments or intentions.
“Needlessly?” If you say stupid shit in public, then we, the public, NEED to identify it as stupid.
@Bernard Brummer
I’m not trying to make any sort of abstract argument as to why Reddit is morally culpable for the content, I was primarily showing the chain by which Reddit is responsible for and already controls content*.
All the other examples/companies also control content (and can and do take down some content) so you are also assigning moral responsibility to Google for content that is present on blogger and Facebook for the users posts – or arent you?
It isn’t hard to find racist/homophobic/sexist stuff on blogs or FB right.
I don’t need to make any argument about other platforms or about not-for-profit organisations.
It looks like you’ve concluded Reddit is bad , then you are rationalizing that with an argument and refusing to apply the same argument to other situations to see how well your argument holds.
It looks like you’ve concluded Reddit is bad , then you are rationalizing that with an argument and refusing to apply the same argument to other situations to see how well your argument holds.
He’s made an argument, it’s solid and plausible, and you apparently can’t refute it; so he really doesn’t have to do anything else.
Are you going to refute Bernard’s argument, dshetty? Because if you can’t, then the argument stands, whether or not he explicitly mentions other sites.
Go fuck yourself isn’t high on the list of counter arguments I like…
Then stop ignoring and running away from the other arguments I’ve offered you.
Oh, and…
Go fuck yourself isn’t high on the list of counter arguments I like…
I was asking about the counter-arguments I made, not the ones I didn’t make.
I’m afraid you have introduced a false assumption into your argument. Reddit does do content monitoring, as you would know if you actually read Chen’s article. A large part of the problem is that the 4 employees who constitute[d] the paid staff of Reddit did not want to have to read the trashy parts and basically turned over responsibility to Brutsch/Violentacrez. That’s why he was moderator of so much stuff — in exchange for being allowed to keep his pet projects running, he was combatting things which were illegal on behalf of the organization. (And they say he was doing a better job than they did before he started.)
That’s why I keep insisting that the focus of the argument should be kept on Reddit’s double standard. If it’s okay for them to keep Brutsch around because the only standard is “what is legal?” and he assists in that, they really, really can’t complain about someone revealing his identity by entirely legal means.
it’s solid and plausible
Then why run from applying it in general or in the abstract. Its in general where this argument becomes questionable
Then stop ignoring and running away from the other arguments I’ve offered you.
Bernard has made an argument and Im trying to get him to where I am (I already know that Reddit “owns” the content)
He hasnt followed through with what that argument implies.
You on the other hand haven’t made any argument – You’ve tried to make a few smart alec comments in between rants and got one back in return.
@raging bee
Are you going to refute Bernard’s argument, dshetty?
Who is responsible for Bernard’s argument?
Bernard himself?
You for promoting it?
Ophelia for owning the blog on which he posted the argument?
Ed for being the Grand Poobah(loosely speaking) of FTB who invited Ophelia?
Wordpress for providing blogging software?
At&T/Comcast for allowing Internet access to Bernard?
Given the Internet , it is not as straight forward to say you own the servers so you are responsible for the content (if you’ve followed any of the legal cases you’d know why this is so – and a lot applies to the moral aspect as well)
Suppose you have a Google blog. You write a post. Who is morally responsible for it(my answer would be you)? You and Bernard are asserting it’s Google and you. Strangely enough you dont think the people who provide you the Operating System, the browser, the Internet access aren’t responsible though.
He hasnt followed through with what that argument implies.
So what does it imply, and why is it bad?
Who is responsible for Bernard’s argument?
What does that have to do with your inability to refute it? I asked you a direct question, and you’re dodging it.
Suppose you have a Google blog. You write a post. Who is morally responsible for it(my answer would be you)?
I’m responsible for what I write, and Google is responsible for what they allow to be published using their assets. And if I write defamatory or otherwise harmful crap, and Google allows it, we’re BOTH liable — morally and maybe legally — for the consequences.
Strangely enough you dont think the people who provide you the Operating System, the browser, the Internet access aren’t responsible though.
Where the fuck do you get that? And why are you conflating SOFTWARE with a business entity that can make decisions regarding what gets published? You’re sounding dumber with every comment.
Of course. Don’t be silly. He made a choice to make the argument.
Don’t be silly. Raging Bee interacted with the argument in a much more nuanced way than that. That is what he’s responsible for.
For owning it? No. Don’t be silly. What does Ophelia have as a (implicit or explicit) comment policy? To what extent has she interacted with this argument? That is what she is responsible for.
For inviting Ophelia once upon a time? Don’t be silly. He bears some vague, ultimate responsibility for those things that are Ophelia’s responsibility in her conduct here. He bears none for Bernard’s argument itself.
Don’t be silly. WordPress bears some responsibility for how the world is being shaped by the existence of a more level playing field for publishing. It bears none at all for Bernard’s argument.
Here I think you’re trying to be silly, but Bernard’s service provider likely has an agreement with Bernard for how that service can be used. They are responsible for enforcing that agreement if it comes to their attention that Bernard has used their service in ways they have not agreed to have it used. They are also responsible both for setting those terms they had control over (i.e., not those required by a government agency).
Did you think these questions were difficult?
@Stephanie Zvan:
Possibly dshetty does, but it’s interesting that your answers to them suggest that you are, yourself, applying a double standard.
If Reddit is responsible for Brutsch’s posts strictly because they have, so to speak, a kill switch, then Ophelia is responsible for Bernard’s comments because she has the ability to remove them.
If Reddit is responsible for things people other than Brutsch posted to his sub-Reddits strictly because they turned over responsibility to Brutsch, then Ed is responsible for things Ophelia allows in her comments section because he has turned over responsibility to Ophelia.
An ethical principle which is not applied consistently is not worth enunciating; it’s not suddenly okay if it’s us that’s doing it, and turnabout is fair play.
Possibly dshetty does, but it’s interesting that your answers to them suggest that you are, yourself, applying a double standard.
Sorry, I must have missed something. Where is ANYONE applying a double standard? Who here is saying that Reddit has to remove certain ugly content and some other outfit is not? Seriously, let’s at least have comment numbers where anyone says anything like that.
The mere fact that Bernard talks about Reddit, but diesn’t talk about some other outfit, does not mean there’s a double standard. It’s only a double standard if he explicitly says a different standard applies to other outfits, and doesn’t give a good reason why. Please show where he or anyone else did that, or admit this “double standard” talk is just another dodge.
Except, Vicar, that you’re comparing things that aren’t like. Ed didn’t recruit Ophelia to uphold his moderation standards the way Reddit did with Violentacrez. Ed recruited her as a writer. As far as Ophelia’s responsibility to Ed goes, she may or may not ever look at a single comment and that wouldn’t make a difference. She does that for herself, and the responsibility for it rests with her.
Reddit was not hands off. They appointed Violentacrez as moderator of more sites. He received a reward from Reddit for what he did. They made it clear that what he did he did for them.
Those are very different explicit apportionments of responsibility (the key element of dshetty’s question). Acknowledging that is not hypocrisy.
@Bee
So what does it imply,
That anyone on the internet is then morally responsible for the content that is hosted on their site. That’s a grand claim that most people are loathe to make.
Google is responsible for what they allow to be published using their assets.
And since Google does allow misogynistic/racist/homophobic blogs on blogger they are in some sense morally responsible for it , correct?(perhaps even their search engine that allows you to find such things is at fault too) because it does “publish” the content.
Please confirm , because the next set of questions would be to assume that Larry Page is a good guy and believes in his Do No Evil motto , what do you want Google to do? Ban the users? Ban the content? Do it proactively(the technology exists) or reactively?
The next set would be which content? Racist , Misogynist, Homophobic, Privacy Invasive? Bullying? Neo-Nazi ? How about Pornography? How about Japanese Hentai especially the lolicon variety?
The next set would be related to who arbitrates and decides which content is acceptable and isn’t.
If you can practically do nothing then in what sense are you morally responsible?
And why are you conflating SOFTWARE with a business entity that can make decisions regarding what gets published?
Well a business cant publish anything without Software. Software has a license. Surely they could add a clause saying don’t use my software to publish misogynistic content?
Your argument is along the lines of the universe has a creator but the creator can’t have a creator (because I say so!). Why stop at one level up the chain – why not continue walking up the chain? Why not stop at the first level and say the user is responsible for the content instead of assigning blame to the hosting company?
For you to “see” a “published” page on the internet there are so many things involved – you arbitrarily pick one – the hosting company – and say morally responsible! If you think it’s absurd to blame your ISP think again – they too have an acceptable use policy so they too could say don’t use the access to write misogynistic crap otherwise we’ll revoke your internet access. Dumb – yes – but that’s what it implies when you want the hosting company to police content.
@Stephanie
Either withdraw your accusation or explain in what way I accused you of lying or don’t respond to me because I wont.
Stephanie Zvan is, and possibly you as well if you agree with the answers she gave to dshetty’s questions. She explicitly denies that Ophelia and Ed have any editorial responsibility over Bernard’s comments.
The question is not about whether Ophelia should be censoring Bernard’s comments, or whether Bernard’s comments contain anything worthy of censorship, it’s whether she has responsibility for the continued publication of Bernard’s comments on her site.
Stephanie Zvan’s answers explicitly say that she thinks Ophelia and Ed have no responsibility, but she has said that Reddit does — go back and read what she said again.
Before you start swinging at me: I am not exempting Reddit from responsibility or suggesting that Bernard should be censored (the opposite, in fact); I am merely saying that special pleading (which is basically what Stephanie was doing) is a bad argument. I think that people who hold an opinion should take responsibility for explicitly rejecting invalid arguments which support that opinion; in the long term, a false argument only harms a cause.
dshetty, have you forgotten comment 90 already?
Vicar, if you think I said people have no responsibility in a comment that told you what they were responsible for, you need to learn to read.
I believe Stephanie@127 has answered the “double standard” charge sufficiently. Either respond directly to her points there, or this particular sub-argument/diversion is over.
Oh, and dshetty? Your conflation of software with organizations that own assets is still bogus. They’re different in nature, therefore we can’t apply the same standards to both. Seriously, boy, do you really think we can’t tell you’re just flailing about?
I am merely saying that special pleading (which is basically what Stephanie was doing) is a bad argument.
I’m sure we all agree that special pleading is a bad argument. That’s probably the main reason why Stephanie is not doing it.
A guy chooses to call himself “Violentacrez,” and Reddit puts him in charge of upholding moderation standards? That’s a pretty stupid mistake in itself. Sort of like a boarding school hiring a headmaster with the online name of “PervyWanker4Teens.”
There’s clearly a difference between discussions on reddit that are moderated as a result of reddit’s own policies and discussions on facebook that are not moderated because facebook does not have policies about moderating content.
Besides that, how many fucking complaints do I hear about breast-feeding etc. photos taken down from facebook? Apparently the “double standard” is actually being applied fairly because facebook does take responsibility for this in a half-assed poorly-executed kind of way.
Why do you suppose google+ was so insistent on the real-name policy in the first place? Maybe because they were taking some moral responsibility not to become what reddit has become? Having a lot of trouble finding the “double” part of this “standard.”
re: doxxing: New York Times and Washington Post dox people every day. Even people who have done terribly immoral things that are nonetheless legal. I don’t hear anyone complaining about that. But when Chen does it at Gawker it’s a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad thing.
re: harm: One of the creepshots posters was subsequently identified as a teacher, junior high or high school, who was posting photos of students. If you’re going to argue doxxing is potentially harmful, how about acknowledging that normalizing and encouraging predatory behavior like this is also potentially harmful? “Oh, you can’t identify someone from the photos!” Fucking irrelevant. Following adolescent girls around trying to get an upshot photo is itself harmful. It’s predatory behavior. It makes women feel less safe — and almost certainly actually does make them less safe. It leads to the objectification of women which also makes women everywhere less safe. Making a culture out of this behavior online normalizes it and gives sexual predators a fucking support group so they can think of themselves as something besides a sexual predator.
re: free speech: free speech is protection from government action. Since the government has taken no action on this issue free speech is completely irrelevant to the situation.
@Raging Bee:
Well, strictly speaking, your OS and/or web browser could have included some sort of filter to monitor your posts and stop you from saying certain things. It probably wouldn’t work very well (Google “clbuttic”), it would probably be easy to defeat, and it would have serious consequences for your freedom of speech even if it didn’t work, but it could have been included. I think the inclusion of the question was a sarcastic “how far are you willing to extend your argument?”
In addition, dshetty was, I think, trying to highlight that content monitoring is impractical at some levels. It would be possible to build monitoring into your web browser, your OS, or even the hardware (your keyboard could be designed to refuse to issue certain sequences of characters, for example) but doing so would cause more problems than it could possibly solve.
Sites like Reddit are, in practice, on the borderline of the failure of monitoring responsibility. (Pretty much every level below that has been tried, and has been a failure. The DMCA, for example, makes hosting companies responsible for IP violations in hosted content, and the system is so rife with abuse that it is basically a failure, even if it remains in force.)
Revenue generation purely from providing web content (i.e. payments from web ad companies) is far too low to allow Reddit to hire enough people to do effective content moderation on such a large volume of content. (It seems like people think Reddit is this massively profitable organization packing away huge amounts of cash — they aren’t. They have, or had at the time Brutsch was given authority, a paid editorial staff of 4. Most likely the bandwidth and hosting charges eat the bulk of the revenue. Conde Nast, which ultimately owns Reddit, may even be running a loss on it.)
Which is why, once again, the argument comes back to their abandonment of “anything legal is ok”. If it is not possible for them to do detailed content monitoring, that’s a reasonable excuse — a much better one than “free speach!!!1!”. But the minute they start complaining about perfectly legal investigative journalism, they are abandoning that standard.
“Oh, you can’t identify someone from the photos!” Fucking irrelevant.
And not even true. Why do you think cops use photos whenever they can? We now have software that can at least assist in searching online for facial features matching those of a given photo. And even without such aids, all it takes is a few people (out of the billions who have access to a photo once it’s on the Internet) recognizing either a face and/or a place (possibly with help from background objects), and the face has a name attached.
I think the inclusion of the question was a sarcastic “how far are you willing to extend your argument?”
True — a sarcastic question, not a serious point.
If it is not possible for them to do detailed content monitoring, that’s a reasonable excuse…
Is it really? If an oil company can’t afford basic failsafes to prevent disastrous fires or spills, is that a “reasonable excuse” for not giving a shit about spills? Of course not — it’s a cost of doing business, and if you can’t afford the cost of doing business, then you shouldn’t be in the business.
That’s an awful lot of speculation about their finances. I wouldn’t try to hang any arguments on that.
Sorry, I hit the “Send” button too soon. Preventing your assets from causing harm to others is a basic cost of doing business, and something that’s pretty much expected of any business (something libertarians and their paying clients, of course, are trying to erase). If I can sue a natural-gas company for poisoning my kids’ water, I can sue an Internet content host for compromising my kids’ safety and privacy.
@raging bee
Your conflation of software with organizations that own assets is still bogus.
Argument by assertion is tiresome. For you to publish a page , many things have to happen. Unless you have a magic moral responsibility detection device (similar to the religious metaphor detection device) you are going to have to make your case why one of those things is morally responsible , but not the others. Each of those points could prevent you from publishing a page (and already do prevent you if you violate specific conditions).
@dshetty:
What about those of us (like me) who are convinced that Larry Page is a lying weasel who doesn’t believe in his own ‘our unofficial motto is “Do No Evil”‘ propaganda campaign? If it were revealed that Google was outsourcing everything to a country where they paid everyone $1 a month it would, to me, merely be extrapolation of their trajectory.
@Stephanie Zvan:
No, the two cases are reasonably like — more than enough to apply the same set of rules in determining responsibility.
Reddit’s staff did not seek out Brutsch; Brutsch came to Reddit’s staff. Reddit’s staff gave Brutsch authority over a certain section of their site.
Substitute “Ed” for “Reddit’s staff” and “Ophelia” for “Brutsch”, and the previous paragraph is presumably still true. (And in fact, if Ed sought out Ophelia and asked her to join FTB, then actually I would argue that it makes her responsibility even greater.) Motives may be important, but if we’re going to try to respond consistently, we can’t pay much attention to them in practice because we have no way of verifying them.
To argue that FTB somehow has special exemption from the rules which you want to apply to Reddit is special pleading. In fact, FTB should — and does! — have extra rules by which Reddit is explicitly not bound. FTB is a specifically topical site which is not attempting to cover anything anyone finds interesting, and maintain a reasonably high “tone”. As a result, there are boundaries which FTB bloggers are not allowed to cross, and there has already been a case where one of them was — quite justly — ejected (Thunderfoot — which I know wasn’t his exact screen name, but I don’t want to look him up; I begrudge trolls even the slightest amount of attention the way I begrudge Walmart even the slightest amount of money). Reddit does not have the same goals or focus — which is why I feel confident reading just about anything from FTB but stay away from Reddit most of the time.
dshetty, what field have you wandered off into? We are talking about Reddit, which appointed Violentacrez as its representative and gave him a reward for what he did. That is active, deliberative behavior. Talking about whether some software company should make their software do something other than what it does isn’t just irrelevant. It’s insulting to the people you’re…whatever you’re doing here.
Ups, I guess dshetty and TheVicar really are ignoring inconvenient arguments.
Unless you have a magic moral responsibility detection device…
You really think it takes “magic” to distinguish the moral responsibility of inanimate objects and software from that of people making decisions in an organization? You really can’t see the difference? This is simple grownup common sense, and calling it “magic” only proves (again) that you’re not grown up and have no common sense.
Are you really this ignorant, or are you trying to make an argument from ignorance?
@Dan L
I did ask Bernard if moderation is the defining difference for the reddit issue. But if so its not a strong one because while some open systems (like forums) have a more visible moderation , it’s simply not true that Google/facebook/twitter whatever dont have similar capabilities.
http://www.blogger.com/content.g – See
If we find that a blog does violate our content policies, we take one or more of the following actions based on the severity of the violation:
Put the blog behind a ‘mature content’ interstitial
Put the blog behind an interstitial where only the blog author can access the content
Delete the offending content, blog post or blog
Disable the author’s access to his/her Blogger account
Disable the author’s access to his/her Google account
Report the user to law enforcement
They can and do act for a lot of issues – just not sexist ones.
@raging bee
You really think it takes “magic” to distinguish the moral responsibility of inanimate objects and software from that of people making decisions in an organization?
Really ? software writes itself? There is an organization behind it – they sell it, they make you accept their terms and conditions. Its just that software is so up the chain of the things you need to publish something that you dont stop to think twice about it. Again you are making an arbitrary line in the sand of where moral responsibility lies and it doesnt.
Dan L
which ones? Is there something specific that you think Im avoiding?
To argue that FTB somehow has special exemption from the rules which you want to apply to Reddit is special pleading.
“Special exemption from the rules?” Where the fuck did anyone say that? Stephanie gave good (or at least plausible) reasons why FTB is not the same kind of organization as Reddit, and you admitted this was true after accusing her of “special pleading.”
Your charge of “special pleading” is unsupported, and you further undercut it in your own comment, right after repeating it. Pointing out that different organizations might apply the same general standards in different ways in particular circumstances is NOT “special pleading.” You don’t even know what you’re talking about.
It has fuck all to do with motives. It has everything to do with the apportionment of responsibility and the activeness of participation, as I laid out. That would be why that whole bit about giving Violentacrez an award is important, as is the fact that Reddit asked him to help with other subreddits.
But yeah, Dan L. is right. You’re just ignoring what I’ve said when it’s inconvenient to your argument, whatever that may be. I’ll leave you to that.
The distinction between people and objects is an “arbitrary line in the sand?” Go to bed, boy, it’s perfectly obvious you’ve lost this argument, and no amount of diversionary hand-waving will do you any good.
@dshetty:
I pointed out that both facebook and google+ have content moderation policies in place. In facebook’s case these are predictably procedural and half-assed for the sake of covering their own asses, but the point stands that facebook is not standing up for you freedom to post pictures of boobies.
google+ is a more telling case: they have a strict real name policy, an example of a policy that, if implemented by reddit, would have prevented the current mess entirely!
wordpress is irrelevant because it is a software package, not a discrete online forum the way facebook, google+, and reddit are. Similarly, Linus Torvalds is not morally responsibility for child porn botnets running on linux vms.
FTB has already demonstrated that the network takes moral responsibility for what is posted on the network. Notice Greg Laden and thunderf00t haven’t been posting very reliably lately.
Active support. It means something when we’re discussing moral responsibility.
I also think it’s fairly scummy to try to play down creepshots as merely “sexist” when I described in detail the specific harm I think it causes as opposed to, say, a CWA blog. I think CWA is sexist but whatever, it’s a position they’re actually advocating for. Creepshots was advocating for the right for men to objectify and predate adolescent girls. “Sexist” I think kind of minimizes what was going on there.
Dan L
I also think it’s fairly scummy to try to play down creepshots as merely “sexist” when I described in detail the specific harm I think it causes as opposed to
Substitute sexism with “rapey invasive violation of other people.” wherever I used “sexism” – I dont really differentiate various types of sexist behavior since almost all forms are extremely harmful – evidently that makes me scummy.
And dshetty pulls out the old “I’m going to treat your characterization of one of my behaviors as a characterization of me as an entire person” trope. Yay.
@dshetty:
If you’re trying to convince me you’re arguing in good faith this really doesn’t do the trick.
Yeah, I guess if NAMBLA is engaging in free speech then so are the guys on creepshots. Awesome.
This argument seems to make me think that human beings don’t really deserve freedom more than it makes me think freedom is a wonderful thing that must be defended at all costs.
Though the NAMBLA point brings up an interesting question. Is there an /r/nambla on reddit? Would reddit have a problem with it if there was?
@raging bee
The distinction between people and objects is an “arbitrary line in the sand?”
Lets try again with the assumption that yes Reddit is a bad company which is morally culpable. Lets assume Oracle Corp sells them software, Cisco corp sells them the network equipment. Both Oracle and Cisco are aware of the violentacrez issue and that reddit has publically declared they have no intention of changing anything. Should Oracle and Cisco sell their hardware and software to Reddit knowing fully well what Reddit will use it for? Are they not morally culpable too? The network equipment is an object and the Oracle DB software does not yet have sentience.
Note again Im not arguing specifics (i.e. Reddit choice of moderators or their statement – I have already stipulated that those were bad and do demonstrate bad faith) – Im arguing a more general a hosting company allows users to publish stuff – do they have moral responsibility if they don’t moderate.
@Dan L
Yeah, I guess if NAMBLA is engaging in free speech then so are the guys on creepshots. Awesome.
Huh? I never said its a matter of free speech so violentacrez or Reddit can say whatever they want. Nor would I be screaming censorship if Reddit chose to act. The question is can you say Reddit is morally responsible if they dont.
As far as NAMBLA goes , they must be hosting their site somewhere and using some service provider. Per your reasoning those sites are morally culapbale too.
They certainly are. Hosting companies routinely decline to host sites whose editorial content they don’t endorse. Some don’t do this, some do.
No, software and hardware are not equivalent to providing the forum itself. Sorry. Already been rebutted. Enough with this stupid argument.
Should also be clear: reddit isn’t morally responsible for the creation of creepshots — whatever user created is.
Reddit is morally responsible for hosting creepshots. This doesn’t even necessarily have to be considered as bad, nearly as bad, or bad at all — that will depend on individual opinions about morality. Claiming there is moral responsibility involved doesn’t imply a perfect assumption of all kinds of moral responsibility.
@Dan L
No, software and hardware are not equivalent to providing the forum itself.
So Oracle can say I dont care what you use my software for , I only provide it for a price and Reddit can’t say I dont care what you use my forum for I only provide the hosting i.e. essentially a software service.
This doesn’t even necessarily have to be considered as bad, nearly as bad, or bad at all — that will depend on individual opinions about morality.
Sigh – if its not bad at all then where does the question of “moral responsibility” come in. Decide now please is hosting a creepshot morally wrong or not.(Leave aside other Reddit behavior since Ive already agreed thats wrong).
Lets assume Oracle Corp sells them software, Cisco corp sells them the network equipment…
Excuse me while I belabor the obvious for the willfully ignorant: Reddit has real-time knowledge and control of what goes up on their servers; people who sell them stuff (and don’t actually own the assets at the time they’re used) do not. Does that distinction mean anything to you? Or am I using words too big for you to handle?
I dont really differentiate various types of sexist behavior…
…probably because you don’t really care about any of them, or the harm they do to innocent people. Which once again proves you’re a self-important idiot with no common sense. And you’re lecturing US about moral responsibility?
@Raging Bee
Does that distinction mean anything to you?
So today , Oracle is unaware of what reddit will do with its software including hosting creepshots? I already added the Oracle knows what reddit will do with its software.
Oh and soon the websites might be hosted on the cloud so the realtime distinction wont matter. You can use Amazon hosted services like Ec2 or S3 instead of Oracle Corp for my example. Now?
Right. You brought up hosting providers. If Brutsch wanted to set up his own website for this shit he and he could find a hosting company willing to do so then he would be free to it — just like, as you pointed out, NAMBLA. Of course, if that was the case he couldn’t really do it anonymously. He’d have to register the domain, etc. I doubt there’d be nearly as much fervor about “doxing” in that case.
What granted him the ability to do this anonymously was the fact that he didn’t have to do so — reddit provided him with a forum to do so anonymously (and, as Stephanie rightly keeps pointing out, active encouragement). Reddit, as a company, decided that this content was appropriate for reddit, as a company, to host and apparently defend.
I don’t think Brutsch thinks what he did was wrong. Do you think it was wrong? Do you think you have a way to objectively adjudicate between those two positions?
I personally believe hosting /r/creepshots was wrong. Maybe you disagree. Since I don’t believe there is such a thing as an objective moral code I can’t prove to you that my position is right. I imagine this is why NAMBLA is able to find hosting for their website (whose existence I don’t even care to verify). I bet a lot of hosting companies wouldn’t touch it — because I imagine they care about their public image. That’s as close to a moral decision as you’re ever going to see a corporate entity make. I think reddit made the wrong fucking decision.
Dude, the hardware/software angle is completely frivolous and I think you know this. You’re getting into wanking territory.
@Dan L
Do you think it was wrong?
Stipulated way back that his actions are unambiguously wrong.
Do you think you have a way to objectively adjudicate between those two positions?
Nope I don’t have a way to “objectively” do anything. Do you?
I personally believe hosting /r/creepshots was wrong.
Then does it matter if he also (perhaps) did it on his blog? on facebook? in an email? on some forum? Its this question that’s been dodged by people. (I also note that you dont say a moderated /r/creepshot is wrong but an unmoderated would be ok or an actively supported /r/creepshots is wrong but an unsupported one would be ok)
Maybe you disagree.
“Hosting” /r/creepshots feels wrong. But I don’t have a good reason for it other than instinct. (Japanese lolicon feels wrong but I cant come up with a good reason )
———–
Last time on this particular topic
Dude, the hardware/software angle is completely frivolous and I think you know this. You’re getting into wanking territory.
A sells services to B and is fully aware of what B is going to use his services for(this knowledge is crucial to the argument). B allows C to use his services. C is using the services for obviously bad(please replace with suitable words) stuff. We agree C is wrong. You say B shares some of the moral responsibility for C’s actions(perhaps not to the same proportion). Fine but then why stop at B is the question. A can’t claim ignorance. A can if he chooses to , not sell services to B.
You keep trying to make distinctions of the form B also did these other wrong things (which I can also agree are wrong) but that doesnt make any difference to the broader picture.
You’re wanking. You’re not trying to understand what I’m saying. You’re trying to come up with some clever argument so you can “win”. I don’t really feel like playing that game with you.
I’ve been ignoring a pretty good amount of posturing from you and I’ve been arguing in good faith. I don’t really feel like I’m getting the same from you. If you want to understand my perspective I’m happy to explain it but you’re really not giving that impression.
Let’s try one more time.
Oh? But I thought you said:
So maybe you don’t differentiate because you don’t have any clear idea what’s wrong about it? Because you’re just going by your gut?
I already said if he can get a hosting company to host his creepshots nonsense that’s fine — it’s within the law. And if reddit decides to host it so he doesn’t have to that’s also legal. But it invites moral censure — reddit doesn’t have any obligation to provide a forum for that. That’s a choice they made.
I can hold them morally accountable for making that choice. Their vendors didn’t make that choice. They made it. Just like the hosting company that hosts some terrible site is responsible for hosting it.
Since as you agree there’s no objective way of demonstrating anything to be right or wrong you are free to disagree. But since you’re relying on gut feelings and don’t really seem to have any clear idea of what’s wrong with creepshots I’m not sure why you’ve been talking down to the rest of us on the subject of morality in the first place.
The question isn’t being dodged at all — that’s why I’m having trouble doubting your sincerity here. Maybe you’re having trouble understanding what it means to hold a company “morally responsible” in the first place? How do you feel about software companies that sell surveillance software to oppressive dictatorships?
I dont really differentiate various types of sexist behavior since almost all forms are extremely harmful – evidently that makes me scummy.
Not caring enough to think seriously about something that does a lot of harm to a lot of innocent people does indeed make you scummy. Congratulations — you finally got something right, if only unintentionally.
It also makes you totally unfit for civilized adult company. So go fuck yourself.
@Dan L
So maybe you don’t differentiate because you don’t have any clear idea what’s wrong about it?
You are mixing two things – Im saying I dont have a particular nuance that calling someone a bitch is less harmful than calling them a cunt is less harmful than invading their privacy is less harmful than invading their privacy and publishing it on the net. So in my head sexist / misogynist was short form for the rapey privacy invasive creepy stuff – If the latter words make so much of a difference to you , thats fine I dont have a problem using them instead to describe behavior. also because we are making an in general argument I can substitute say racism for the creepshots and still make the same point.
Is that clear?
However a service provider hosting content? Not so clear or well defined.
But it invites moral censure — reddit doesn’t have any obligation to provide a forum for that.
Which is also fine so long as you admit that other well known platforms also don’t have to provide a forum for similar stuff , and they do . So they too invite moral censure.Agreed? Then we can go from here.
don’t really seem to have any clear idea of what’s wrong with creepshots
Where in all of this do you think Im defending creepshots or that i think taking them or putting them on the net is bad?. Im not defending a users behavior or even for that matter Reddit.
Dont assign other peoples defense of Reddit to me.
The question isn’t being dodged at all
Then what is your answer. Suppose violentacrez now makes a blogger account and puts up his creepshots there. Google politely declines to take down the blog and puts a mature content advisory. Do you or do you not hold Google responsible?
How do you feel about software companies that sell surveillance software to oppressive dictatorships?
Conflicted. Though the more exact analogy would be a software company that has an open to all, freely available , downloadable surveillance software(and makes money on pageviews and ads) which a dictatorship happened to download.
@dshetty:
What’s clear is that you don’t seem to have any idea what you’re talking about regarding morality and yet you’re talking down to me like I’m the moral nincompoop.
You’re intentionally trying not to understand this. I can only imagine because you think you can somehow “win” the argument by not understanding it. It’s impossible to demonstrate something to someone who is dead-set against it being true.
I didn’t accuse you of any of this.
I already gave my answer. Yes, of course. The fact that you can’t acknowledge that I’ve already answered this several times is speaking pretty poorly for your fair-mindedness here.
Then you (predictably) missed the point of the question. It was not an analogy in the first place. Are you wondering at all why I’m having trouble believing you’re arguing in good faith?
Incidentally, if you think the harm caused by creepshots is “revealing identities” or “publishing their identities on the net” then you really are a moral nincompoop. You’re adopting reddit’s “the worst possible social ill is to name names” honor among thieves ethos apparently because it’s convenient to your argument.
You are mixing two things – Im saying I dont have a particular nuance that calling someone a bitch is less harmful than calling them a cunt is less harmful than invading their privacy is less harmful than invading their privacy and publishing it on the net. So in my head sexist / misogynist was short form for the rapey privacy invasive creepy stuff – If the latter words make so much of a difference to you , thats fine I dont have a problem using them instead to describe behavior. also because we are making an in general argument I can substitute say racism for the creepshots and still make the same point. Is that clear?
Yeah, it’s clear that you’re a pompous idiot who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, doesn’t care enough to learn anything, and can’t stop pretending he has something worthwhile to say.
However a service provider hosting content? Not so clear or well defined.
You seem to be the only person having trouble with the concept. Which is not at all surprising, given how ignorant you are of simpler, more obvious concepts like sexism.
I’ve been commenting on a variety of posts now, and there’s been some reoccurring points coming my way, like those
“Reliwhat you fucking ass hole, it’s private page, he doesnt have any obligation to listen to you”
“Fuck you, fuck face, you dont have rights here, its a private forum, the host can do what he wants”
“Go die in a ditch asshole, on a private property, the owner can do anything if it’s legal, so he doesnt HAVE to do anything”
So, my question is; Why doesn’t it apply in this situation?
It’s legal, it’s a private site, why can’t they just ignore all of you?
Why doesn’t WHAT “apply in this situation?” What are you asking? If it’s sympathy you’re looking for, that doesn’t come easy to people who already made asses of themsleves and got called on it.
Either cut the whiny self-pity and try to say something coherent, or just go away.