On r/RedditSafety, Reddit admin "worstnerd" posts:
Warning users that upvote violent content
Today we are rolling out a new (sort of) enforcement action across the site. Historically, the only person actioned for posting violating content was the user who posted the content. The Reddit ecosystem relies on engaged users to downvote bad content and report potentially violative content. This not only minimizes the distribution of the bad content, but it also ensures that the bad content is more likely to be removed. On the other hand, upvoting bad or violating content interferes with this system.
So, starting today, users who, within a certain timeframe, upvote several pieces of content banned for violating our policies will begin to receive a warning. We have done this in the past for quarantined communities and found that it did help to reduce exposure to bad content, so we are experimenting with this sitewide. This will begin with users who are upvoting violent content, but we may consider expanding this in the future. In addition, while this is currently “warn only,” we will consider adding additional actions down the road.
We know that the culture of a community is not just what gets posted, but what is engaged with. Voting comes with responsibility. This will have no impact on the vast majority of users as most already downvote or report abusive content. It is everyone’s collective responsibility to ensure that our ecosystem is healthy and that there is no tolerance for abuse on the site.
Some users see this as a reaction to the recent controversy surrounding Luigi Mangione and the fatal shooting of the UnitedHeathCare CEO. There are concerns that this new system (which mods are speculating to be AI-driven) has potential for abuse and censorship, especially given the current vagueness of what is considered a "violent" comment or post.
__________
Reactions on RedditSafety:
- I see the benefit, but could it be possible this makes people paranoid about voting? Especially to be safe when they're not sure if it counts.
- This is exactly what will happen, given Reddit has developed a recent habit of removing a bunch of things which don't violate rules. The chilling effect isn't a mistake, it's the intent.
- They're almost certainly looking to chill political dissent or calls for armed protest that they clearly feel is likely and imminent at some point in the future. Laying the groundwork to ban and kill off accounts for voting isn't something you do if you aren't aware there's a growing issue. This isn't about curbing vote manipulation, it's about preventing growing anger and discontent from bubbling over into a repeat of the Unitedhealthcare CEO getting popped in NYC. They're seeing a clear sentiment shift and want to stamp it out, not through moderation but through punishing people who may agree with the sentiment. This is groundwork for abuse.
- [ADMIN] Yeah, this would be an unacceptable side effect, which is why we want to monitor this closely and ramp it up thoughtfully
- and you won't do that regardless. You admins are never careful, and you dont really need to be because all you care about are your corporate overlords, and know that reddit will continue regardless. You've purged so many communities, individuals, etc, to the order of literal thousands and yet reddit still continues. Mods try to blackout in protest and you coup them and reinstall them with people who capitulate to the corporate overlords; and when people try to remove their own content in protest, which should be their own right to do, you reverse the edits. You dont care because you dont have to, there is literally no consequence ever for your actions because you refuse to allow there to be.
- Too bad you absolutely failed at this already.
- Don’t give us that bullshit. We all know this will go poorly and result in false warnings/bans and the censorship of content that your shareholders dislike.
- Could you please clarify exactly how you define "violent content"? Will I get warned for upvoting an anime fight scene clip just because it portrays violence? What about upvoting war footages? There are several subreddits dedicated to sharing combat/war footages.
- Allow me to clarify. The same poorly designed and thought out processes that suspend mods who report vote abuse, that suspend mods in modmail for responding to users who post violent content, that remove innocuous content all over the site will now be suspending you for your votes on the site.
- The lack of transparency is a feature, not a bug. You will be punished as they see fit, if you like what they don't like. Then there will be feigned surprise when Reddit continues to go downhill.
- They keep it vague so they can make it whatever they want it to be at the time. I said I'd stand by and let Elon die if given the chance. Banned.
- [ADMIN] It will only be for content that is banned for violating our policy. Im intentionally not defining the threshold or timeline. 1. I don't want people attempting to game this somehow. 2. They may change.
- So does this impact users in r/publicfreakout upvoting a comment that says something like “they deserved that” under a video where someone gets hurt? This really seems like it’ll affect a ton of content in subs like r/instantkarma, or any sub about topics like bad drivers, or any video of someone doing something dangerous or risky, or any comment mentioning Luigi? Punishing people for voting seems like a terrible way to enforce content guidelines. Especially when you don’t want to define the threshold in this post. What percentage of the comments in this post of a nazi getting punched in the face should I not vote on? Anything that supports or justifies him getting punched? Or this post where many or most of the comments are in support of someone fighting back against a bully?
- Hi. So, you won't tell people the rules but will warn them about breaking the rules, of which they will have no idea why some upvotes did not break the invisible rules, but others did? I am skeptical that you have thought this through in any way whatsoever. If anything this seems like a tailor-made way to chill content you, Reddit, personally disagree with without having to stand by any stated guidelines by which you do it.
- How can one follow the rules without a full understanding of said rules? This is just a blanket cover to allow you folks to silence anyone you choose.
- "They may change" yeah, that's not fucking comforting.
- So you're creating a rule but won't actually explain how the rule works so that people can at least try to properly follow the rule, all because you don't want people to "game it?" Dude, come on. That's stupid as all fuck.
- Thanks u / worstnerd for being the admin that gets me to leave Reddit.
- Hey, how about you get fucked. [...] If the vast majority of common people support Luigi that's a fundamental societal problem and government problem, not a platform moderation problem.
- This will disproportionately affect the Canadian audience of reddit, as we are being threatened by YOUR government; reddit’s government. How can we discuss enlisting in our Canadian armed forces, or preparing tools to defend our homes, to only be mass flagged by pro-annexation chuds — some of whom I would presume are foreign/non-NOAM instigators? A very dark day for reddit; for a website I feel I have been in a toxic relationship with since 2019-21.
__________
On PublicFreakout, the sub's moderator shares the admin's message with the note:
"Mind how you are voting because Reddit is about to start spanking folks for votes"
- we shall now punish you for seeing something we showed you. Shame on you.
- Shit I accidentally liked a rule 34 spez porn. Will I be banned?
- I think it’s safest if we don’t engage with anything via comment or upvote any more. It’s what they want.
- I’m gonna upvote whatever the fuck I want. Get bent u / Spez
- Are Luigi gifs still safe?
- [MOD] Unfortunately they are not.
- Sign up for the Digg reboot while it's still in early access.
- I came from Digg and back to Digg I go.
- Fuck Spez... And that u / WorstNerd fuck.
- Isn’t this a bit of an overreaction? I read the release, and it didn’t seem too draconian.
- Yes yes we all know the rules are enforced completely fairly on Reddit at all times.
- So because rules are sometimes enforced unfairly, there should be no rules?
- > I don't think anybody is saying that. That seems like something that you made up in your own head
- >> Indeed. Everything you said was also made up in your head. That is how language and conversations work. /s
- Yes yes we all know the rules are enforced completely fairly on Reddit at all times.
At least some users are already receiving warnings:
- So if I upvote a post on this sub that shows a fistfight, I can be banned? Cool cool. Edit: I just got a warning that I am breaking reddit rules with this post. This is wiiiild.
- [MOD] The fuck? Did you really get a warning? Please modmail us, that is unacceptable.
The PublicFreakout moderator pledges to stand by their users, at least in the case of one frequently reposted video of a Nazi getting punched...
__________
In r / cincinnati :
- [MOD] Please note - if you get a warning due to this new "feature", it is Reddit, not the mod team taking action. There are no clear guidelines on how this is implemented, probably through the AI tools that never, ever make a mistake.
- I hope Elon Musk has a good time. I hope Donald Trump has a good time. I hope Warren Davidson, Thomas Massie, Mike Dewine, Jim LaRose, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg all have a good time.
- I mean, this was bound to happen with the way Reddit was being used to propagate violent and terroristic rhetoric. All with the complicity of certain subs' mod teams. Do people really think they can encourage doing harm to public officials without the DoJ or corporate players taking notice? It's relatively easy to express your opinions and displeasure without crossing that line. It just takes a little bit of self discipline.
__________
Several anti Elon Musk subreddits apparently connect this with the recent Reddit drama involving Musk that got WhitePeopleTwitter banned:
Your new president turned his gaze on reddit, now they're changing policies to escape his wrath
__________
Full list of other subreddits that have shared the admin's post
There's a story from Soviet Russia.
A bunch of politicians are in the Kremlin and Stalin is giving a speech outlining some new policy. One politician stands up and angrily yells out- "Stalin! This is wrong! I cannot support this measure". Everyone gasps and looks at him.
Quickly, another politician stands up and replies "Comrade! Don't you know? You cannot say that Stalin is incorrect! We do not do that here."
Stalin ignores these outbursts, tells everyone to settle down and continues the speech.
Of course, this being Stalinist Russia, the man who disagreed with Stalin gets quietly sent to the gulag for a couple of years to learn his lesson.
The second man, however, gets sent to the gulag for 20 years and doesn't come out until he is an old man.
What's the moral of the story? Implicit censorship is so much more powerful than explicit censorship. This is reddit goal. Create an air where people self-regulate their speech. The key is not to say it out loud. It needs to be vague and amorphous and ambiguous.
yeah, letting libs read any theory, even something as mild as foucault, was a fucking mistake.
It's so tiresome to read people regurgitating 50s era John Bircher agitprop that was churned out by the same folks lynching Emitt Till and Michael Donald.
One of my favorite old "Soviet" jokes is about a CIA agent and a KGB agent sharing a drink at a bar in Berlin.
The CIA agent says "We Americans are always so impressed with Soviet propaganda. You can get so many people from so many countries and in so many languages to believe the exact same things. Incredible."
The KGB smiles and drinks, then responds "Thank you. But the things you get people to believe are truly incredible. We can't hold a candle to the America propagandists."
The CIA agent sputters in indignantion before relying "Nonsense! Americans don't use propaganda!"
The KGB agent just laughs and finishes his drink.
no but see it's not propaganda if it validates my worldview.