Reddit to crack down on abuse after CEO is targeted

Reuters, Yahoo News ^

[bobk3]

Social media website Reddit Inc, known for its commitment to free speech, will crack down on online harassment by banning or suspending users who target others, starting with those who have directed abuse at Chief Executive Steve Huffman.

Huffman said in an interview with Reuters that Reddit's content policy prohibits harassment, but that it had not been adequately enforced.

"Personal message harassment is the most cut and dry," he said. "Right now we are in an interesting position where my inbox is full of them, it's easy to start with me."

As well as combing through Huffman's inbox, Reddit will monitor user reports, add greater filtering capacity, and take a more proactive role in policing its platform rather than relying on community moderators.

Reddit said it had identified hundreds of the "most toxic users" and will warn, ban or suspend them. It also plans to increase staff on its "trust and safety" team.

Reddit's moves are the latest step by social media companies to adjust their policies in the wake of a polarizing U.S. election earlier this month in which their websites played a key role.

.

[Jyotishi]

Maybe someone here who knows how will launch . . . wait for it . . . FReddit!

[fr_freak]

The most basic function of our government is to enforce the Constitution. When free speech is being abridged on sites that have been recognized as primary means of communication and as public forms, the government can and should step in.

Good Lord. The Bill of Rights limits the government's ability to abridge speech. It has nothing to do with private businesses or private anything. Warped views of the Constitution like yours are exactly why the government is overreaching in virtually every area of our lives. Reddit is a private business. They can censor all they want. They'll destroy themselves doing it, but the government has absolutely no say.

And this reasoning of: hey, we've recognized reddit as a primary means of communication and therefore it should be regulated fully by the government, is exactly how we got to where the EPA recognizes a puddle in your backyard as a wetland and can therefore regulate it and fine you $12,000 per day for not following their edicts.

There is a fair amount of so-called conservatives that think they are fighting Big Government when they are actually part of the problem.

[Socon-Econ]

No need for a fairness doctrine, which would require the government to define “fair”. Simpler to ban them from censoring political content, as with the telephone company. The free enterprisers won’t like this, but the left cannot be allowed to monopolize all the levers of power.

[LexBaird]

When free speech is being abridged on sites that have been recognized as primary means of communication and as public forms, the government can and should step in.

Hmmm.

"When Commerce is being abridged in bakeries that have been recognized as a primary means of getting Wedding cakes and as "public accommodations", the government can and should step in."

or

"When JimRob banns someone at FR, a public forum, the government can and should step in."

Nope. Still sounds Big Govt. Statist to me.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Dude, I’m trolling them, just like Trump does.

Just proposing putting them under the same Fairness Doctrine that they want to put on others will cause their heads to explode.

Just like Trump did to Hillary on flag burning yesterday.

[fr_freak]

Dude, I’m trolling them, just like Trump does.

Yeah, I got that, but it's one thing for a regular guy to suggest these things, and another for the president (or president-elect) to suggest it. For Trump even to suggest such a thing would be to legitimize the concept. I'd be happier if he just called them out on their hypocrisy: "Hey they always call for Fairness Doctrine, but they don't practice any fairness. Not good. Very hypocritical!"

[tbw2]

The president of the company cannot be trusted in these claims because:
* he admits that he altered comments that were screen shotted as saying they were insulting him before changing them to insult various moderators
* since he was able to edit those posts without leaving a trace, he has no proof that he didn’t create those posts that insulted him personally before changing them
* he edited the content on the site before telling a newspaper about the “the donald” Reddit thread, in short, making his content better fit his official narrative before having it go on record, so you know he would do other things to improve the image of his site or back his claims
* an administrator of a site violating terms and conditions of said site AND editing content that otherwise stands up in court (think Clinton’s IT guy asking for advice on BleachBit from Reddit users) cannot then try to act against anyone else in court on the basis of content he might have created or altered or use such suspect postings to try to enforce Reddit’s own terms of service

[tbw2]

Since Facebook has over a billion users, Google has over 90% of all search traffic, it is easy to say “you’re so big, you’re a utility now”.

[tbw2]

They had threads banned for “slut shaming” but had no issues with a group that posted pictures of beautiful corpses.

[Fresh Wind]

Gaydar is on overload...

[unsycophant]

There is something seriously wrong with him, more than an ideological difference of opinion.

The users of his forum should be extremely concerned about the fact he’s altering their comments, and basically trolling them using his own site.

That’s not normal. It’s kanye-esque level of abnormal.

[Non-Compliant_Deplorable]

Words fail me. Disgusting. :-((