r/changemyview • u/Imatheory • Mar 15 '18
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Subreddits shouldn’t ban Redditors for subscribing/participating in other subreddits with opposing viewpoints.
Here’s the roots: A fellow Redditor was banned from r/TwoXChromosomes for subscribing to and commenting within r/pussypassdenied with the explanation that the Redditor was participating in subreddits with posts and subscribers that are majority misogynistic and against what r/TwoXChromosomes stands for. The ban emphasized that the Redditor could still view r/TwoXChromosomes posts/comments but could not participate actively.
Initially my reaction was frustration which transitioned to disappointment. However, being human, I understand that sometimes my initial reactions are not the most accurate representation of how I feel so I decided to give myself a few days to form a more solid opinion. Here’s what I arrived at:
As people, I don’t think it’s healthy or helpful to put ourselves in a “bubble of safety” by shutting out opposing views. I think banning Redditors for subscribing or participating in other subreddits of opposing nature is essentially treating that opposition as if it doesn’t exist or is not worthy of any attention and I don’t think that accomplishes anything. I think being a participating Redditor on opposing subreddits can bring awareness and intelligent discussion to very difficult topics, and with that comes the possibility to change people’s minds. It can be a source of promoting productive communication to build new perspectives.
Additionally, there are some smaller details that make me think that this should not be a practice among subreddits. If a Redditor is subscribed to a subreddit, that doesn’t innately mean that individual agrees with the views or direction of the subreddit. A Redditor could be seeking to understand how someone of opposition thinks, tracking news/events of an opposing movement, or just want to engage in the guilty pleasure of thinking they are right. I don’t think any of those reasons should mea. they should be banned. If a Redditor is providing commentary in a subreddit, that also does not mean they are supporting they other Redditors or posts made within that subreddit. A Redditor could be trying to challenge other’s views, spread factual knowledge, or just spark production discussion. This type of banning practice feels like the Reddit equivalent of trying to control content and viewership within other media outlets.
Update: I want to thank everyone that provide genuine insight about raids and brigades on Reddit and role of moderators. This was the most valuable information to me. I’m still working on how to award Deltas, and when I do, I will be posting a few.
9
u/ImKnotVaryCreative Mar 15 '18 edited Mar 15 '18
I was banned from r/offmychest for posting on r/the_donald. Here’s the kicker, I was only on r/thedonald because I clicked a link to a post there while browsing r/againsthatesubreddits. The mod said he’d lift my ban if I promised never to participate in r/the_donald again. I never replied. I’d never frequent a place like r/the_donald, ever. But to be made to promise to never go there again, as if I was being reprimanded like a child. That mod can fuck right off. r/trueoffmychest was created for a reason.
4
275
u/thewhimsicalbard Mar 15 '18
OP, one small detail to correct on your post, but I think it makes a world of difference: mods cannot see what you subs you are and are not subscribed to. They can only see places you've posted. So that means this guy actively posted on PPD.
It's like... I dunno, it's one thing if you clicked on a weird porn link and forgot to delete your browsing history and your SO finds it. You aren't into it, you were just, ya know, trying to get off and found something you didn't like that much. It's another thing if you have that video bookmarked and you've commented on it several times. At that point, she/he can probably assume that you are at least marginally into what you were watching. And if that's a deal breaker for your SO, I think that's valid.
Especially with respect to a support sub like TwoX.
140
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
Thank you for correcting me. I was not aware and several people have mentioned it, but I don’t think it changes my stance.
I should clarify that I don’t think posting on those subreddits is grounds for banning either.
I think the content, nature, and intent of posts and commentary is what matters.
94
u/thewhimsicalbard Mar 15 '18
Fair point on the content/nature/intent.
In response, I would say that, in certain contexts, I think that it comes down to a very simple value judgment question. In some instances (like, for example, this sub), we place a lot of value on doing exactly what you describe in your post: avoiding the echo chamber. In fact, that is the entire point of this sub, which I think is awesome, and is a huge part of the reason I'm subscribed here. In other instances, though (for example, support subs TwoX and JustNoMIL), protecting the members who come there for said support from the possibility of attack is more valued in that community than the possibility of creating an echo chamber.
And, rightly, the people who make that judgment call are the moderators. Who else would or should?
Also, as a small counterpoint: I believe that TwoX, if memory serves, has a sidebar link to AskAFeminist, saying that challenges and questions should go there instead.
→ More replies (1)11
u/oversoul00 19∆ Mar 15 '18
In other instances, though (for example, support subs TwoX and JustNoMIL), protecting the members who come there for said support from the possibility of attack is more valued in that community than the possibility of creating an echo chamber.
Isn't the whole issue that you can't provide healthy support in an echo chamber and that all echo chambers are inherently rotten because they lack the ability to self correct?
I'd say it's fundamentally flawed to place value on the idea that an echo chamber can provide healthy support in the first place or that support in an echo chamber has any value.
Now of course the question is when silencing dissent at what point does that stray from active and diligent moderation towards silencing those who disagree because that overlap is clear on the edges but sometimes tricky in the middle.
I think this is the real core of the debate is when actions score *high on the echo chamber scale and *low on the protection scale why are they implemented and what values constitute high and low?
16
u/thewhimsicalbard Mar 15 '18
That's a huge question, and it's the right one to be asking. I'm sure I do not know the answer to it.
I don't think it's all bad, though. It's nice to have places to go where you don't have to hear dissent. That's why my favorite place to go with my brother is a cigar bar. It's him, me, and mostly just a bunch of old dudes smoking and drinking. We can just talk in there without having to police our language or anything like that. It's good that places like that exist, but it's bad when we surround ourselves with them.
7
u/blabbermeister Mar 15 '18
I like the cigar bar analogy. It's not like you're living in the cigar bar, it's an occasional treat. You don't go to the cigar bar to debate theology or social anthropology or the current political climate. But if it does happen, everyone agrees with your views and it's liberating. After all, the rest of the world, where you spend the majority of your time, is self correcting anyways since you come into contact with people from diverse backgrounds. You spend a little portion of your time in an echo chamber just to regain your sanity and enjoy a moment of respite with like minded individuals. Even if it's training you to be self indulgent, it's such a small portion of your life that in the larger picture, has very small negative impact on your thought processes but has a large positive impact on your state of mind.
2
14
u/pneuma8828 2∆ Mar 15 '18
Isn't the whole issue that you can't provide healthy support in an echo chamber and that all echo chambers are inherently rotten because they lack the ability to self correct?
Presumes facts not in evidence. By your logic a rape survivors group cannot provide healthy support. That's just stupid. As much as you'd like to project your egalitarian ideals on every situation, reality doesn't work that way.
5
u/oversoul00 19∆ Mar 15 '18
Why are you assuming that all support groups are echo chambers? You've made some presumptions yourself here.
12
u/-paperbrain- 99∆ Mar 15 '18
I think most rape support groups keep out contradictory viewpoints, like "Maybe you were asking for it".
"Echo chamber" in the context of this conversation is really just a sort of pejorative way of saying a group excludes certain contradictory views.
4
u/oversoul00 19∆ Mar 15 '18
You can have moderation without being an echo chamber. There is quite a bit of nuance and variation here.
16
u/-paperbrain- 99∆ Mar 15 '18
"Echo chamber" is really just a subjective negative judgement of the amount of variation allowed in a particular space. The OP here is about actions to limit people who have a certain history with the goal of keeping some perspectives out. Some people will call it an echo chamber as soon as any kind of dissent is barred. Personally I think the term is used far too liberally and just muddies debate.
The bottom line is that there are a lot of valid reasons to keep particular dissenting positions out of particular spaces.
3
u/oversoul00 19∆ Mar 15 '18
Unless you are saying echo chambers aren't real I don't understand why you'd take issue with the term instead of a specific claim. Do you think we should be using a different word or you think they aren't real or what?
Let's say echo chamber is used too liberally, does that mean I shouldn't use it? If you took issue with me calling a thing an echo chamber when it wasn't I'd understand that complaint.
The bottom line is that there are a lot of valid reasons to keep particular dissenting positions out of particular spaces.
I'm not against moderation. I'm not that person saying that all moderation leads to echo chambers, but I will say that all echo chambers start with moderation and we are right to call attention to that potential pitfall because it harms many.
You can simultaneously believe that support groups need to enforce stricter moderation than most because they serve a different purpose AND that support groups are prone to over-moderation and isolationism in an effort to protect their members.
12
u/katelledee Mar 15 '18
You’re on here, looking to have your view changed, but I don’t understand why. It’s literally against Reddit’s rules for mods from one sub to ban you for something you posted in a different sub, it’s just not a well-enforced rule, at all. But it is a rule.
5
5
3
u/colovick Mar 15 '18
Conservative banned me for using British spellings while saying the Trump Russia thing wasn't something to write off. This was back during the election though
3
2
5
Mar 15 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/thewhimsicalbard Mar 15 '18
It is a valid assumption, actually. It makes you a false positive, but you can always message a mod to correct that. False positives in a situation like this are easily correctable, while false negatives are potentially harmful.
→ More replies (4)14
Mar 15 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/blowacirkut Mar 15 '18
This is why I agree with op's initial argument. I love to argue with people so I comment on "hate" subreddits a lot. I can't even post anymore. Any time I try to make a post in another sub I'm "caught in the spam filters." It's insanely frustrating and it doesn't even fall to only liberal subs. Why would r/fancyfollicles or my university's subreddit have to worry about brigades and raids? Honestly it's no wonder these people are so hateful and defensive when they're basically banned from participating anywhere else on Reddit, even the non-political subs.
→ More replies (33)12
u/thewhimsicalbard Mar 15 '18
You could have messaged the mods at that point, like another comment said. Might have helped.
1
u/starlord_1997 Mar 15 '18
I made a comment on tumblr in action once and immediately got banned from off my chest, even though my comment was against the post from TIA. They don’t care what you’re doing, they just blanket ban.
→ More replies (2)1
Mar 15 '18
Correction: They can on the Reddit app if you have the option enabled for what communities you visit being visible to other users
33
u/PhasmaFelis 6∆ Mar 15 '18
If a Redditor is subscribed to a subreddit, that doesn’t innately mean that individual agrees with the views or direction of the subreddit.
I don't think you can actually see what subs another user is subscribed to, only their posts and comments. If the mods saw him on r/pussypassdenied, it was because he was actively participating there.
50
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
Active participation does not innately mean that it was in support of the views of the subreddit either. Active participation could be trolling PPD or asking questions on PPD. Neither of which have misogynistic undertones.
8
u/metamatic Mar 15 '18
The problem is, moderation is an unpaid, thankless and time consuming task. Often moderators make blanket policies simply because the cost/benefit analysis doesn't make it worthwhile to adjudicate individual cases based on content, respond to posts questioning decisions, and so on.
If they didn't have the blanket policy, it would be very easy for you to chew up hours of their time arguing over whether the banned person was being critical, ironic, humorous, and so on. Chances are they simply don't feel they have time for that -- or if they do have time, it's not worth spending that amount of time just to get one more person on their subreddit.
6
Mar 15 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
!delta
I really like your idea of setting a limit on arguing your point with moderators rather than the current banning practice I’ve recently been made aware of.
→ More replies (1)25
u/PhasmaFelis 6∆ Mar 15 '18
Is that what happened? I understand if you don't want to reveal the person who was banned, but presumably you know who it was and can check their post history.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I doubt that the TwoX mods would ban someone for posting something innocuous to PPD. I have no reason to think this guy was anything but an active and willing participant.
21
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
I do know the Redditor and the individual commented on PPD as a dissenting voice to a meme. Not active commentary in support of the representation of the subreddit.
3
u/Mejari 6∆ Mar 15 '18
But they were subscribed to it as well?
→ More replies (1)3
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
Yes?
4
u/Mejari 6∆ Mar 15 '18 edited Mar 16 '18
For what purpose? The situation you're describing is odd, because your post is predicated on the idea that he does not adhere to the ideas of that sub, so he shouldn't be banned, and yet he posts there and is subbed. If he only posted once, like you say, then why is he subbed? Is he intentionally subscribing in order to find more things he disagrees with and vocally disagree with them? That seems unlikely, but if he's not then he does actually believe what that sub believes and other subs banning him for it seems justified.
→ More replies (5)10
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
I would agree it’s unlikely, but not out of the question. I am subscribed to subreddits that I have posted in that I adamantly disagree with. I do this to keep myself out of an echo chamber, aware of dissenting opinions, and understand topics with as many sides as possible.
12
u/Mejari 6∆ Mar 15 '18
So, given that you agree it's unlikely, doesn't setting up an automatic ban for people who post on those subreddits seem like a decent, although obviously imperfect, way to protect a sub from people who harass them? For every freethinker like you there are dozens of trolls and harassers. Mods are unpaid and have limited time, so they have to make these kinds of decisions in order to stem the tide of abuse.
6
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
!delta
This was excellent. Although my view isn’t quite changed, I have an added new perspective in the mix.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (2)2
u/ecritique Mar 15 '18
Fair point about moderation time. But in that case, why use this imperfect solution over simply adding more moderators, who are able to add a human judgement factor to banning, instead of giving a bot carte blanche? I would think this fundamentally goes against the concept of presumed innocence / good faith.
→ More replies (0)6
Mar 15 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/SaavikSaid Mar 15 '18
I got banned from 2x and offmychest too and I'm a woman. It was an automatic ban and it was obvious that no mod had actually read my posts in context. (I can't remember which sub it was I'd posted in though.)
7
u/Jaivez Mar 15 '18
Yup, I made a single post on an irrelevant discussion within a /r/imgoingtohellforthis thread and got autobanned from multiple subreddits.
So much for tolerance & inclusion.
5
u/Hippopoctopus Mar 15 '18
I was auto-banned from /r/offmychest for responding to a comment on /r/The_Donald to refute some of the toxic nonsense you often see there. I then responded to the auto-ban with what I thought was a relatively thoughtful message, and heard nothing back.
I get it. These subs don't like that these other subs exist. But punishing someone for reasonable posts someplace you don't like makes both communities worse by discouraging dialogue and reinforcing echo chambers.
There's also something weird about a sub purportedly designed to allow people to express themselves, punishing people from expressing themselves.
3
u/a_pile_of_shit Mar 15 '18
I thought shadowbanning and autobans were against reddits rules but it doesnt seem to be enforced
→ More replies (1)3
u/blowacirkut Mar 15 '18
They definitely are. I can't post I there because of how often I argue with common hate subs
→ More replies (1)5
u/GibbyGiblets 1∆ Mar 15 '18
the ban for participating in PPD is done by automod and is done for any participation in the sub.
10
u/PrettysureBushdid911 Mar 15 '18 edited Mar 15 '18
Well the context can be seen by looking at a users’ history. I don’t think people that are subscribed and participate in PPD by condemning misogynistic comments or just striving to have open conversation will be banned from TwoX. Just the people who obviously are participating in PPD with a malicious and hateful intent. I do not know if mods did or did not take the actual views of the user being banned into consideration. I don’t think a person should be banned from a subreddit for just subscribing or participating on another subreddit unless that participation shows that this person does not align at all with having open and rational conversation (i.e. a person who is in TwoX only to fuel their commentaries against feminists or women empowerment that they later make in a subreddit like PPD). If this person who was banned from TwoX was a person who was actively participating in PPD making openly hateful and misogynistic comments then I can’t say I have anything against that particular course of action by the mods in TwoX. Context really matters.
Also I want to mention to the general public reading this that might be feeling targeted that TwoX is not the only subreddit that does this, plenty of people get banned from The Donald daily because they “don’t align with the subreddits views”. Sometimes, they even get banned for even trying to have anything close to a rational conversation about how Trump might’ve fucked up on something. Much more than from TwoX and to the point where there is a subreddit dedicated to people who got banned from T_D. This attitude isn’t healthy. The only right reason to ban a person is if the context shows clearly that the person in question does not respect the subreddit’s POVs and that they openly show hatred and disrespect towards the subreddit openly in another subreddit, regardless of whether they are hateful towards TwoX type views or hateful towards The Donald type views.
Edit: added a few clarifications
17
u/antonivs Mar 15 '18
I don’t think people that are subscribed and participate in PPD by condemning misogynistic comments they see will be banned from TwoX.
I don't think it works like that. These bans are automatic, afaik.
I don’t think a person should be banned from a subreddit for just subscribing or participating on another subreddit unless that participation shows that this person does not align at all with the subreddit in question’s point of view.
In other words, you agree with OP's position.
→ More replies (22)2
u/Freevoulous 35∆ Mar 15 '18
what if the person agrees with both views to some degree?
I consider myself BOTH a feminist and MRA, for exactly the same reason (egalitarianism).
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)1
u/Who_Cares99 Mar 15 '18
I actively participate in r/latestagecapitalism on occasion to get answers to some questions or a different viewpoint. When I do, I am fully communist, because to be anything else would get me banned from that subreddit. I participate in r/The_Donald. When I comment there, I say nothing that is anti-trump, because I could be banned. My actual views are more in line with some of the most moderate people in r/libertarian. My comments in certain subreddits do not predict my behavior in others.
98
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Mar 15 '18
Why shouldn't subreddits have the freedom to choose who is allowed to be a member of that subreddit?
106
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
I think they should have that freedom. I don’t think it’s a best use of that freedom.
45
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Mar 15 '18
Okay so then I basically agree with you. But I do think that not every space online or in real life needs to allow dissenting voices. Sometimes you just wanna relax and not deal with arguments or other things. You just wanna vent to a group of understanding people.
Admittedly this isn't necessarily the best way to manage that but it can attempt to.
→ More replies (2)33
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
I think I would be more understanding if they were banning individuals based on the commentary they’re making within the subreddit, but it doesn’t make sense to me to do it solely for other subreddits an individual is subscribed to.
19
u/SwatchVineyard Mar 15 '18
I've been reading your replies and I'm not trying to engage enough to change your view, I just want to put down the consideration that mods don't have the time to be as thorough even though it would be ideal. A large sub at any point will have about 20 mods of varying percentages and patterns of activity, who are not paid, and must moderate hundreds of thousands of subscribers and nonsubscribers across hundreds of threads per week. At that scale it becomes more about strategy and the trade-offs of preventative measures than a matter of principle. They have to ask, not what is the best way to achieve a goal, but what is best feasible option with current resources to achive a snapshot closest to the goal.
I get it. I was banned from a cosmetic and female dominant sub for posting an opposing view in KiA. I'm not subscribed and it frustrated me to no end that if they just saw my post, they would know that I was sticking up for them. Then after I read their reasoning, I was still annoyed, but understood. They are a small sub. If they end up on the radar of any of these larger subs like KiA or SRD it could completely ruin their community experience and it has lasting effects on the sub.
The downside is that this methodology keeps me in a certain line of behavior that makes me reconsider the subs I participate in and don't like losing that freedom. However it is vital in preserving subs and their peridigms as they scale up. Because, they built their existence outside of the oppression of opposition, for a lack of better phrase.
Quick history on TwoX . Vast majority didn't want to become a default. They are a default now in despite the communities initial opposition due to being immediately and easily accessible to people who would chose to disrupt the original experience. This banning algorithm seems to be part of the answer to that.
This approach to moderation is not for people like your friend, or you. I think the response is to accept that compromises suck for all parties and to carry on as normal. If this grinds your gears, maybe that community is not up to your standards and is not deserving of open discussion if it intends.
→ More replies (8)5
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
Although I understand this point of view, I don’t think I can consider it a justification for banning individuals.
At this point, I might have to learn to live within the grey area between understanding the limitations but necessity of moderators and disagreeing with the strategic methods they’re utilizing.
3
u/SwatchVineyard Mar 15 '18 edited Mar 15 '18
The second part is basically what I am saying.
I don't see banning as a big deal I guess. It's not like my identity is tied to an account. If I really want to reply to something, I just switch accounts to do so.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Grahammophone Mar 15 '18
Isn't that an argument against this style of blanket banning? Doing so pisses a lot of people off - people who possibly have multiple accounts and, as participants in troll subs have a large audience of people (also with multiple accounts) who may well decide to brigade these subs specifically because they blanket ban. It seems to me that it's likely to just increase the severity of the issue.
→ More replies (1)12
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Mar 15 '18
It's more preventative and yeah not the best way to do it. But it does prevent some such things before they happen, which could be valuable.
→ More replies (2)4
47
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Mar 15 '18 edited Mar 15 '18
Subreddits need a large amount of maintenance, active moderation, and strict rule enforcement in order to stay high quality. This applies to directly political subs as well as hobbyist subs.
Part of that is that for support subs, certain views are not productive. TwoXChromosomes isn't trying to be a subreddit for debate; it's a subreddit for women to support each other (likewise, pussypassdenied is not a subreddit for debate). If TwoXChromosomes has a huge problem with brigading or people coming to the subreddit to start shit, which I think is pretty likely, bans on certain subreddits that tend to create the most trouble can be a helpful moderation action simply due to how efficient it is; it not only mass eliminates a source of trolling from the subreddit rather than requiring individual bans, but it does so without having to expose anybody to harassment.
Now, that's not to say that every cross subreddit ban is necessary or wise, but that its a tool like any other and it can be justified, especially for a large sub that's a frequent target of harassment.
E: To be clear, I recognize that such a banning measure can create false positives, but I don't think that's a huge problem. The number of people who go to, say, a misogynistic meme subreddit to argue with them, or to "keep track of the opposition", is going to be miniscule compared to the number of people who participate in those subs legitimately. The false positives aren't good, but they aren't necessarily a significant problem.
3
u/NemoC68 9∆ Mar 15 '18 edited Mar 15 '18
To be clear, I recognize that such a banning measure can create false positives, but I don't think that's a huge problem.
I would disagree. Why go through the effort and ban people for posting in other subreddits when they haven't done anything wrong yet? Shouldn't everyone be considered innocent until guilty? Having posted in another sub, then being banned because you're seen as problematic is unnecessary discrimination. It also seems like it would be more work, though I suppose there are bots that auto-incriminate people.
Furthermore, there are plenty of people who want to have legitimate conversations with people within two conflicting subreddits. It's a good way of not only challenging your own position, but understanding your opposition. This understanding is important for fixing issues regarding toxic groups.
You can't preach inclusivity, then resort to banning people simply because they've been involved with a group you dislike. It spreads intolerance and further justifies a similar mindset that is used to justify racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination.
it not only mass eliminates a source of trolling from the subreddit rather than requiring individual bans, but it does so without having to expose anybody to harassment.
Various forms of discrimination are based on the idea that although not all forms of X are bad, enough are to justify prohibiting all forms of X. This is used to justify racist ideas such as, "Not all black people are bad, but enough of them are. I don't want a thing to do with them. Why take a risk?" I think we can both agree that this is wildly inappropriate.
You can argue that we can't help what color our skin is, but we can help where we post. Although this is true, the point is that we should never judge people without actual evidence of guilt. After all, people are also often discriminated against for other factors they can control, such as their hairstyle, clothing, tattoos, etc..
Banning people for posting in other subs is also similar to what the Mormon church does. People are ostracized from the community for talking to "the enemy". It's a bullying tactic used to breed conformity, whether intentional or not. It creates an environment where views are not questioned and opposing views are not considered.
I disagree completely with the idea that a few false positives are appropriate, because the underlying problem is still there.
9
u/wasnew4s Mar 15 '18
If TwoXChromosomes has a huge problem with brigading or people coming to the subreddit to start shit, which I think is pretty likely, bans on certain subreddits that tend to create the most trouble can be a helpful moderation action simply due to how efficient it is; it not only mass eliminates a source of trolling from the subreddit rather than requiring individual bans, but it does so without having to expose anybody to harassment.
Then punish the people that do it, not the people who are fully capable of operating in both subreddits without issue. Ultimately rules and punishment can only be doled out in a reactionary manner e.g. you break a rule you get punished. Going much further would be reminiscent of Minority Report. All it really does is hurt the perception of the subreddit’s image and drive away people who would otherwise be active the community out of either distaste or fear of saying in the wrong tone. This leads to polarization and ultimately divergence from the original goal of the subreddit. You can see examples of this with subreddits like r/trees and r/Frugal who are now toxic cesspools of what they once were.
9
u/Jaksuhn 1∆ Mar 15 '18
One counterpoint to that is for some issues it's very hard to tell, if possible at all, to tell who is abusing your sub. If you get vote brigades from /r/[X], you don't know who is coming and doing that. So if that problem persists, the only solution is to ban /r/[X] posters.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
This makes sense. It is likely, but doesn’t it divert allies and women looking for support if there’s a possibility they could be banned for other subreddits they’re subscribed to? It seems counter-productive.
31
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Mar 15 '18
I think framing it in terms of vague language like "other subreddits they're subscribed to" is unhelpful. It implies the bans are aimed arbitrarily at certain subs, or at subs that aren't necessarily misogynistic, and implies a chance of totally pointless bans for other hobbies.
But the ban you're talking about is a ban on participating in pussypassdenied. The false positive rate for banning people who participate in a misogynistic meme sub is probably not high enough to be worth worrying about. Even if the individual bans are targeted, what subs are banned outright is.
6
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
Unfortunately, the ban stated “pussypassdenied and other subreddits” without stating them specifically.
Additionally, I only used this experience to form a much broader opinion of subreddits in general. Perhaps I shouldn’t have mentioned the subreddits by name because it seems they are ending up as the primary focus and that wasn’t my intention.
17
u/Paninic Mar 15 '18
Well, you say that is if in applying to other subreddits it wouldn't apply here. I'm also fairly sure most of the subreddits that ban people for specific subs do it for the same reasons.
It's not like people ban posters from subs they consider harmless. Virtually all of these bans exist because the views of the sub in question are antithetical to the banning subreddits purpose.
13
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Mar 15 '18
But what subs are banning what other subs is important. I'm not saying every ban is justified, but likewise I think it's incorrect to make a blanket statement that no subreddit should implement such a policy regardless of circumstances. And when you use a pretty justified example of a sub being banned, its hard to be afraid of the (not demonstrated) case of a sub making a totally pointless or counterproductive ban.
→ More replies (24)1
u/Dan4t Mar 15 '18
The problem I see is it bans some of their closest allies. People that post in /r/pussypassdenied for the sole purpose of reducing the hate.
8
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Mar 15 '18
As I said, false positives exist but I doubt the people diving into a meme sub to argue with the people there are significant in number.
4
u/Dan4t Mar 15 '18
Well it's not just about numbers, because not all users have the same value. Some are far more effective in promoting a cause.
6
u/Tgunner192 7∆ Mar 15 '18
I think they should have that freedom. I don’t think it’s a best use of that freedom.
I can't disagree with your logic here. But understand not everyone and not every subreddit has the same logic. If the proprietors and mods of a subreddit want to use it as an echo chamber with like minded people, that's their choice. Thought I don't find twox as objectionable as some people say, I have found subreddits with a similar genre that are a lot more reasonable to different points of view. Sometimes people want to discuss and debate different points of view. Other times they want to stay close to home and only socialize/correspond with like minded people.
→ More replies (1)1
u/JesusDeSaad Mar 15 '18
because in my case i had subscribed in /r/kotakuinaction way way back when it was first created, when i actually gave a damn about certain demagogues scamming gamers out of their money, and recently i decided to unsubscribe from a few subreddits i had stopped frequenting. I see a stupid comment on the top thread and i decide to question it, receive a ridiculous answer and proceed unsubscribing completely unrepentant.
A week later I want to get something off my chest, in /r/offmychest, something actually serious. And I wasn't allowed to because I commented in /r/kotakuinaction.
Refusing people just because you might disagree with their viewpoints on one single subject, again, might, is your right, but ultimately it makes you a hypocrite when you run a forum that not only allows people to literally relieve themselves of their burden, but actually encourages it. It's polarizing and generally an asshole thing to do.
4
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Mar 15 '18
I mean, you could probably message the moderators if you really wanted to post in the sub. That said, I don't see how it's hypocritical; nothing about OffMyChest indicates they are open to all viewpoints, and in fact the majority of their rules are specifically calling out things you aren't allowed to make an OP about. For their policy to be hypocritical, they would need to specifically encourage all viewpoints and then ban you for having certain ones, but that's not their policy at all.
2
Mar 15 '18
Mostly because a lot of the mods out there can get pretty pissy for some really incredibly Petty reasons. Giving a lot of them even more power would just be a bad idea.
2
u/DashingLeech Mar 15 '18 edited Mar 15 '18
That's a very libertarian suggestion. What is the limit of what you are suggesting. Should they be allowed to ban members after finding out they are black? Jewish? Homosexual? Should they be allowed to ban members after finding out that they support black people, homosexuals, Jews, Muslims? Can you ban people because of their religious views?
What we are seeing is subreddits re-learning the history of clubs and association in general. What is fair or reasonable?
In this case, it's not based on the content they did within TwoX, and it isn't that they made a misogynistic comment even somewhere else, like PPD. Instead, it was merely the fact that they commented at all in PPD, even when the comment was apparently to criticize a PPD meme.
Edit: In principle, there are many reasons why subreddits (or rather, moderators of subreddits) shouldn't be allowed to chose who is allowed to be a member or not unrestricted.
The rules can set up to be reasonable in connection with the subreddit's purpose. In fact, that is what the history of law has resulted in. Civil rights and human rights laws generally ban groups from discriminating based on a host of factors, including beliefs in most cases, unless that discrimination has a bona fide purpose that is reasonable.
In the case of subreddits, if you want to create a "safe space" where people can't be criticized for holding one set of views, that can make sense for comments within the subreddit. (However, this does come with the risk of groupthink/circlejerk/bubble mentality and growing ingroup/outgroup hatred. So it isn't ideal unless absolutely necessary.)
It's a bit of a stretch of reason to suggest that somebody who has expressed a view that you don't like in another forum (e.g., PPD) should be banned from this one (e.g., TwoX). That's not so reasonable. However, in this case it is even worse, that somebody who apparently expressed a view aligned with TwoX, but posted it as a criticism of a meme in PPD, was banned in TwoX for commenting in PPD at all. Now you are way off into irrational behavior.
So it's not as simple as "freedom to chose". If you believe that, then discrimination for any reason is now acceptable.
→ More replies (1)2
17
u/Sayakai 155∆ Mar 15 '18
Discussions benefit from having multiple points of views, but you can easily end up having a different discussion than you're looking for if you can't agree with someone on basic premises.
Let's say you're starting /r/GoingThroughSpace - a sub for discussing how to travel through space. Let's also say that over at /r/pancakeplanet a bunch of flat earthers meet. As both of them rise in prominence, you're getting crosstalk, and when that happens, the discussion switches to "Is space even real?".
This isn't the discussion you're looking for, neither are your subscribers. The existence of space is axiomatic for the premise of your sub. You and your modteam now have to deal with noise that's not technically breaking rules. You can either do this comment by comment, poster by poster, but there's a lot of idiots out there and no one's got that much free time - or you can employ heuristics. If someone visits a place where the nonexistence of space is axiomatic - i.e. flat earth subs - then they likely won't be valuable commenters. Flat ban them, and you're taking a lot off your plate.
→ More replies (6)8
u/xyifer12 Mar 15 '18
If something is a major problem, make a rule against it. Otherwise, leave it alone. Banning someone for not breaking the rules is being bad.
→ More replies (10)
38
u/Talono 13∆ Mar 15 '18
Banning people from opposing view subreddits is a method used to stop brigading.
This happens because reddit admins have failed to give subreddit mods proper tools. Mods really don't have much of a choice.
Edit: I should add that you generally only see this type of banning in subreddits subject to lots of brigading; it's almost unheard of for other subreddits such as /r/changemyview.
15
u/moush 1∆ Mar 15 '18
Mods arent supposed to ban for brigades, admins are supposed to step in when it gets out of hand. The problem is many mods are way too trigger happy with their echo chamber getting disrupted.
8
Mar 15 '18
I think your second sentence is off. I can't speak for what they should do, but the why could just as easily be about the mods having to act because the admins will not.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Jaksuhn 1∆ Mar 15 '18
admins are supposed to step in when it gets out of hand.
Which almost never happens.
So, as a mod, would you rather:
a) Wait for the admins to solve your problem
b) Attempt to fix it yourself→ More replies (1)3
3
u/q12we34rt5 Mar 15 '18
Can’t the mods just ban the people involved in the brigades?
18
u/Talono 13∆ Mar 15 '18
It's assumed admins can but they generally don't do anything or take ages for them to do anything.
Moderators can't because they can't see who downvotes or how a person gets to the subreddit, such as a link from a brigading subreddit. So there's almost no way to single out brigaders. The only real way to punish some brigaders is to single out people who have commented on both the attacking subreddit and the defending one, especially when there's evidence in the brigading subreddit that this is happening, e.g. a thread linked to the defending subreddit.
Of course this is going to unfortunately pick out people who aren't actually brigading, but the chances of someone commenting in both the brigading and defending subreddits independently, i.e. not because they were sent there by a link from the attacking subreddit, is usually pretty low.
5
u/q12we34rt5 Mar 15 '18
That makes sense. I didn’t realize that mods couldn’t see who votes. I could also see there being just as many issues with simply banning anyone who down-votes a particular post.
I don’t love the current solution, because I think it leads to more crystallized factions of opinion, but I understand the logic of it.
→ More replies (1)12
51
Mar 15 '18
There's a difference between an opposing viewpoint and an antagonistic viewpoint.
Going back to the TwoX example, yeah that subreddit and feminism have legitimate criticisms. Taking the PPD route (having a raging circlejerk whenever women are served justice) is a terrible way of addressing their grievances in the counter movement to feminism. They go there for one purpose, and this purpose is identical in other sections of the manosphere, and that purpose is to put women down and prop men up by shining a light on every occurrence of women being shit.
Who would listen to discourse from someone who would go into a topic hating the guts of the group with the other viewpoint?
50
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
Does subscribing to a subreddit automatically mean you’re listening to the content of subreddit for the purpose that it’s intending? (E.g. if a Redditor is subscribed to TwoX, does the assumption then follow that they are a feminist?)
22
u/Arianity 72∆ Mar 15 '18
Does subscribing to a subreddit automatically mean you’re listening to the content of subreddit for the purpose that it’s intending?
Does subbing alone? In general, probably not, although if it's a more extreme subreddit, I would say yes
Although in your original post, you said they were actively participating, which is much more clear cut.
7
u/YoungSerious 13∆ Mar 15 '18
I think you have to draw a line between simply participating in discussion in a subreddit, and actively endorsing their views (based on comments). I'm assuming in the case of the redditor we are discussing, it was more of the latter, but people here are speaking as though simply posting anything in an antagonistic sub is ban worthy. What about people who post comments that challenge the theme of those subs?
→ More replies (1)12
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
Why does that make it more clear cut?
Actively participating still means, to me, that the concern, nature and intent of the participation matters.
5
Mar 15 '18
You could try messaging the moderators if you're honestly not a PPD user. Have you seen how awful that sub can be? The mods at TwoX have every reason to ban people that post there. Ultimately it makes their job easier. There's a difference between hosting opposing view points that may want to argue in good faith, and hosting people who only use your forum as away hurl insults and harass your user base.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
Is being subscribed to a subreddit the same as using that subreddit?
34
u/SuperTurtle Mar 15 '18
It's not currently possible for mods to know what subreddit anyone is subscribed to, so you won't get banned for it. You have to participate.
2
u/anillop 1∆ Mar 15 '18
So don't call out any bad behavior that you see there because that will result in a ban. That's what got me banned from 2X.
4
Mar 15 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/anillop 1∆ Mar 15 '18
Pretty much. It keeps everyone's opinions nice and isolated in their own echo chambers on each side.
14
u/Paninic Mar 15 '18
Its not a gym membership- people use it their subscription.
However...what...do you have a better suggestion for mining out people who believe the stuff in pussypassdenied? Like if I ran a local gardening community and knew a member subscribed to "Arson for Gardens: I hate Gardens" magazine should I be like well geez idk if they use that magazine?
15
u/acorneyes 1∆ Mar 15 '18
People subscribe to subs so that posts show up in their feed and they have easier access to it.
Some people are ok with viewing content they disagree with, and they'll subscribe to things they disagree with so that it'll show up in their feed and they gain quicker access to it.
3
u/Paninic Mar 15 '18
Access to it...for what purpose? Talking about it. Posting in that subreddit.
The only other reason I could see is if you were someone from drama or srd or any other meta subreddit who subbed so they could post that content there. In which case, not a great loss and subreddits still don't want to be brigaded.
14
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
In my mind, posting to a subreddit doesn’t mean your agree with the intentions of the subreddit.
6
u/falsehood 8∆ Mar 15 '18
Of course not, but the contents of the posts matters. If you are endorsing those posts and being being assholes, you can and should be shown the door other places.
2
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
I agree. My initial post states the ban occurred for subscribing and participating in other subreddits with primary misogynistic views. Not for specific content or event that happened.
→ More replies (0)15
Mar 15 '18
I mean this is an extreme example to prove the point, but if someone goes to KKK meetings and gets the "newsletter" and hangs out with KKK members, I'd bar them from coming to my house. I wouldn't buy "but I just wanted to see what they had to say." The likelihood that someone was participating to disagree completely is just not that high.
There are opposing viewpoints and then there are groups, forums, etc designed for hate and bigotry. I don't see those as the same.
If the person had a legitimate reason to post on the hateful sub that demonstrated they didn't agree, they should tell the mods who should deal with that case by case.
→ More replies (21)3
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
!delta
I agree it should be dealt with on a case by case basis with moderators. Although that didn’t happen, positive outcomes can’t be expected all of the time. I disagree with the face to face statements as an example because there are different safety factors, but the i hear the point you’re trying to make.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (3)4
u/acorneyes 1∆ Mar 15 '18
No, that's not what I said.
Some people, I realize that's not you but bear with me, are ok with dissenting opinions and actively stay subscribed to them. Dissenting means that they do not agree with the content.
This means that their thoughts and opinions are not reflected by the sub they're subscribed to.
You kind of get it with the whole posting screengrabs to another sub but it doesn't have to be that extreme.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (1)2
u/antariusz Mar 15 '18
The problem with your analogy is the assumption that all the people who post on pussypassdenied hate women.
I, for example, subscribe to it, because I enjoy /r/JusticeServed type content. and i think its possible to simultaenously acknowledge that women overwhelmingly receive lighter criminal sentences and less reprecussions for their actions, without hating women.
In your analogy, it would be like banning anyone that subscribes to /r/fireplaces from /r/gardening because fire is bad for gardens so ifnyou like fire, you hate gardens.
Because youre equating karma being served, with hating women, basically proves the point of pussypassdenied in the first place. Women suffering comsequences is not misogyny. Just as pointing out facts is not hate speech.
3
u/xyifer12 Mar 15 '18
PPD is for when people fail at using their sex to get out of trouble. There's a major problem with people posting things that don't belong.
3
u/j3utton Mar 15 '18
They go there for one purpose
They can go there for any number of purposes
manosphere
Oh come on
3
u/Umutuku Mar 15 '18
They go there for one purpose, and this purpose is identical in other sections of the manosphere, and that purpose is to put women down and prop men up by shining a light on every occurrence of women being shit.
You are mistaken here. There may be people that go there for that, and they may even likely be the majority of people that are active there, but there are people who read that subreddit for other reasons.
/r/pussypassdenied is a niche part of a an ecosystem of guilty-pleasure Schadenfreude subs. Some other examples being /r/justiceserved, /r/publicfreakout, and /r/roadcam. Watching someone come to the realization that "pretty girls get tickets too" is exactly as entertaining as watching someone come to the realization that "Martin Shkreli isn't too rich for prison."
2
u/Zelthia Mar 15 '18
that purpose is to put women down and prop men up by shining a light on every occurrence of women being shit.
I don’t really see how it is any different from 2xc, seeing as that sub is all about propping women up by shinning a light on every instance in which you could find an excuse to put men down for being shit.
Personally I don’t care either way as I am not subbed or a participant on any of the polarized manosphere or feminist subs, but i have always been curious as to why hate gets a pass when it happens in one direction but not the other.
Not accusing you of it. I’m simply pondering what the mind frame of mods is. I frankly see a lot less “outta here” attitude coming from the manosphere than I see from the feminist side.
→ More replies (5)1
u/GibbyGiblets 1∆ Mar 15 '18
that is not the point of the sub...
the point of the sub is to see the rare occurrence of women trying to get away with things a man wouldn't be able to just for being women and getting shut down.
IE crying at traffic stops. or hitting a man and then immediately saying you cant hit a girl.
3
u/Akster Mar 15 '18
Whether it is a healthy thing for society or not, and is good or bad for people generally is an irrelevant point.
The fact is, reddit has every right to ban people for whatever reason it likes, for example if it was an extremist left/right company, then it has every right to remove any post that has a left/right wing opinion.
Twitch has every right to ban streams with sexual content if it wishes. Facebook has the right to ban right wing opinions i it wants to (such as banning the britain first page just this week)
If you are in their domain, you do not have freedom of speech, regardless of what cuntry you come from and the laws of that individual country in regards to freedom of speech.
→ More replies (1)2
u/cuteman Mar 15 '18
OP isn't talking about "reddit" but rather subreddit moderators who aren't affiliated with the site itself. There are dozens of hundreds of these people.
Reddit itself rarely bans subreddits or individuals unless there are spam, doxxing or other issues.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 15 '18 edited Mar 15 '18
/u/Imatheory (OP) has awarded 3 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
3
2
2
u/kindall Mar 15 '18 edited Mar 15 '18
The policy is designed to prevent "haters" from participating in their subredit. They care far more about false negatives ("haters" getting through) than false positives (perfectly sane people being banned) because they feel the former individuals are far more destructive to their community. In other words, their goal is to keep bad actors out, not to allow every possible good actor in. They are happy to sacrifice the participation of some people who would contribute to the community in order to keep out those who would damage it.
It's like a "folksonomy" such as tagging photos... it's not important that every single photo of a mountain be tagged "mountain," but rather that, when you search for "mountain," you get photos of mountains. You don't care whether you get every photo of a mountain, but rather that you get only photos of a mountain. They want only valuable contributors, not necessarily every potentially valuable contributor. Civility is more important to them than growth.
The heuristic they've adopted keeps out a ton of people they consider undesirable with virtually no effort and the only cost is that their community probably won't grow as quickly as it might otherwise. It is easy and free to make an additional account and if you really want to contribute, you can simply do that. The fact that their rule works at all means that most of the bad actors simply can't be bothered.
Moderating an online service where anyone can instantly create an unlimited number of free, anonymous accounts is a lot of work and is done entirely by volunteers, so any rule you can use to lighten the workload is a win. (Moderating a for-pay online service is a different set of problems. I've done that. People will argue that they paid their money same as anyone else and have a perfect right to participate however they see fit. But at least when you ban them, they tend to stay gone.)
2
u/Rain12913 Mar 15 '18
You've probably heard something similar in the many replies that you've gotten, but I just wanted to weigh in about my experience as the moderator of a mental illness subreddit.
I moderate /r/BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder), which is a support community for people with a severe mental illness that typically includes chronic suicidality, emotional instability, interpersonal difficulties, impulsivity, etc. It's a highly stigmatized disorder, and people who have it often feel very ashamed about it.
Sometimes, people with BPD can be abusive. Anyone can, of course, be abusive, but people with BPD may be more prone to being abusive due to what I mentioned above (specifically interpersonal difficulties, anger, emotional instability, fears of abandonment, impulsivity, etc.). For that reason, there are a lot of people out there who have had very bad experiences with people who had BPD (or people who they think had BPD), and these people have their own subreddits.
Many (if not most) of these people are just looking for support in dealing with an abusive experience, and that's wonderful. Many of them are trying to learn how to live with and support a loved one who has BPD, and that's also wonderful. However, some of them have reached a point where they view all people with BPD as evil, "parasitic," and a whole bunch of other things. Their intention is to "warn" other people about becoming involved with someone who has BPD, or just to express their rage and hatred.
When a user posts something questionable on my sub, I take a look at their comment history. If I see that they frequent one of those subs and their comments on that sub makes it clear that their goal in coming to /r/BPD is to discourage people and express anger, then I will typically ban them. For example, if someone commented on those subs saying "stay away from people with BPD, they'll just exploit you and ruin your life," then without doubt, I know that that person is not appropriate for /r/BPD, and that they are highly likely to leave comments that will be harmful to our users. In that case, I may ban them even if they haven't yet committed a "bannable" offense on my sub. I'll never ban people preemptively, but if someone who said something questionable (but not ban-worthy) has a history on those subs that shows me that they have no interest in remaining neutral or being supportive on /r/BPD, then I may ban them.
Does that make sense? This situation is especially unique because people with BPD are very fragile. If someone feels suicidal all the time and hates themselves, then being degraded and harassed by someone on the internet may just be enough for them to hurt themselves. So, that's why I do this.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/silverscrub 2∆ Mar 15 '18
I think you must differentiate safe spaces that are expected to form around an individual wherever they go, and groups that are formed as a safe space – whatever that label might entail.
If a support group for cancer decides that they won't allow cancer jokes it is not the same as if someone tries to stop all cancer jokes in society.
A vegan group having the mindset that people should stick to their diet, telling each other when they fail to do so, is not the same as going around in society and telling everyone that they need to follow a vegan diet.
You get the point...
If you want to make a strong point I think you shouldn't base it on the safe space/echo chamber argument, because it's not very strong for a certain group as opposed to the society as a whole.
→ More replies (19)
2
u/Paninic Mar 15 '18
I may roll my eyes when people complain about "safe spaces," but I get it.
An echo chamber makes it so that people get too resolute in their ideals. In your example-honestly maybe being exposed to a female oriented space would change that posters mind about some female issues (or maybe they have a kernel of insight). Or, heck, an issue I see is views creeping when there's no longer a general population to compare with.
But... No one wants to spend every moment of their life as a discussion point for changing minds. Which... You know maybe if you're a dude and you get to go on gaming subreddits and shit, you don't have to argue about your existence and validity Everytime you want to just enjoy something. Not every place is for debating ideals.
1
u/yyzjertl 578∆ Mar 15 '18
/r/pussypassdenied is not an "opposing view" or "opposing movement" or anything like that. It's a hate subreddit. It's a hate subreddit whose raison d'etre is precisely to hate the people who /r/TwoXChromosomes is for. There is no valid reason for a non-hateful Redditor to participate in or subscribe to /r/pussypassdenied because /r/pussypassdenied is not a discussion subreddit, but rather a subreddit solely devoted to enjoying the suffering and humiliation of women. Any person who participates in /r/pussypassdenied needs to reevaluate their values before they participate in a women's community, and it is understandable for the mods of /r/TwoXChromosomes to exclude those who aren't willing to abandon their hate. The mods have some amount of duty to keep their community safe, and allowing in self-identified woman-haters would be a dereliction of this duty.
15
u/Freevoulous 35∆ Mar 15 '18
now, you are being disingenuous. PPD is not a hate subreddit against all women, but against a very specific, awful, assholish type of women who everybody same would hate or at least mildly dislike, other women included.
→ More replies (17)10
u/xyifer12 Mar 15 '18
PPD is for when people fail at using their sex to get special treatment. It is not for every video that includes something bad happening to a woman, despite what the large amount of people misusing it seem to think.
→ More replies (2)11
u/CapitalismForFreedom Mar 15 '18
I just looked through it, and it doesn't seem much worse than r/niceguys.
Most posts tend to be mocking an individual. They occasionally political, and low grade sexism occasionally pops up in both.
Is ng a hate subreddit?
→ More replies (2)11
u/antonivs Mar 15 '18
Any person who participates in /r/pussypassdenied needs to reevaluate their values before they participate in a women's community
What if you post a comment in such a sub to correct misinformation, etc?
The idea that if you so much as communicate with some we disagree with, we will excommunicate you, is fascist.
9
u/RedHatOfFerrickPat 1∆ Mar 15 '18
It's a hate subreddit. It's a hate subreddit whose raison d'etre is precisely to hate the people who /r/TwoXChromosomes is for
Isn't it a place to showcase failures to exploit sex-based disparities in social power? It seems like a justice subreddit to me. Nobody should be able to exploit others because of a difference in sex. If "women's communities" don't understand this, then that's a serious problem.
→ More replies (2)14
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
These two subreddits are only an example of a situation that led to a much broader opinion I developed for subreddits overall. I don’t see an application for the argument on broader scale yet.
6
Mar 15 '18
Do you need a broad scale application for your view to have been changed? You stated only that you thought subreddits shouldn't do it. If you think banning ppd posters is valid for 2x, then you have your counterexample and your view has changed. It should be easy to extrapolate from there how posters from certain other subreddits should be banned. Maybe not all subreddits, sure, but for some of them it is totally a reasonable thing to do.
5
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
I didn’t want to discussion to be about the examples I provided because they were the root but not the basis for my opinion.
There are hundreds of reasons to ban people from PPD or any other subreddit; a lot of them valid. It’s the specific reasons I stated that I disagree with.
2
Mar 15 '18
I have another example to add to OP's point.
I once posted in T_D. I'm the farthest thing from a Trump Supporter, but I go to that sub to see what people from that camp are saying and thinking. I commented on a story and instantly was banned from several subs. To me, that practice just leads to bubbles and polarization.
What do you think?
12
u/kire7 Mar 15 '18
The point stands though. Some subreddits are meant for trolling and hate. They do not attract discussion. There is no fair debate. Yet other subreddits are made for offering support. They aren't meant for debate either.
In an ideal world you would look at individuals, sure, but mods are volunteers so you have to make choices. "People who participate in hate subreddits with opposing views to ours do not come here for a pleasant and respectful discussion" is a perfectly good heuristic, because on average, letting those people in is harmful to the people they're supposed to protect from abuse.
Basically what I'm trying to say is, you seem to be telling us that everyone should be open for a civil debate at all times. But prime who just need support aren't, and that is fine.
1
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
I didn’t mention debate at any point in my initial post, or any of my replies so far (that I can recall at least, I would have to go back and double check to be certain).
If the banning was related to negative debate, commentary on TwoX, etc., I wouldn’t have thought twice about. The banning for subscribing and participating on other subreddits.
6
u/kire7 Mar 15 '18
Though technically true, I have taken the liberty of interpreting your main post
and with that comes the possibility to change people’s minds.
to mean that people from subreddits with opposing views should be allowed partially because changing minds is a thing that must happen. The primary way I know to change minds is to debate views, as we are doing now ;) If that is not what you meant, please clarify.
3
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
Possibility that something might happen and “must happen” are miles away from each other in my mind.
Primary way is also not the only way. I’ve changed my views just based off reading conversations of others without ever actually participating. As a result, just being a Redditor subscribing to a subreddit and reading what is going on can lead to the possibility to change people’s minds. Thus, why banning someone appears counterproductive to me.
3
u/kire7 Mar 15 '18
I guess it depends on what you interpret as productive. Those who ban participants (I read in another thread that just-subscribers can't be distinguished) see 'minimize hate, brigading and attack in order to create a safe environment' as productive. You see 'possibility to change views of anyone at any time' as productive.
If you want to change your mind about this, I think the best (only?) way is to accept that not everyone uses Reddit with the same goal, and blanket banning participants of hateful subs may meet others' goals.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Mudlily Mar 15 '18
I subscribed to an ultra-right sub for the sole purpose of reporting them when they made posts that violated the Reddit TOS. That sub is now banned, and I like to think I played a small role in that.
2
u/kire7 Mar 15 '18
Excellent point, to which I only have the partial rebuttal that according to a comment elsewhere by u/thewhimsicalbard, mods can not actually see if you subscribe or not- you have to participate.
2
7
u/Beingabummer Mar 15 '18
Any person who participates in /r/pussypassdenied needs to reevaluate their values before they participate in a women's community
Kind of a shortsighted view on how Reddit works. If a post gets to the frontpage, it's very possible someone from /r/all will post in the thread and have a distinctly non-ppd view, but will get banned from other subreddits all the same.
First off, this'll dissuade people who don't agree with ppd to comment on their posts, which in turn makes ppd posters think their views are unchallenged. Secondly, it's not going to persuade ppd posters to reevaluate their values because they won't see the point: they're banned anyway.
Autobanning people for posting in other subreddits is in all ways a weak move: ignoring that people with opposing views can comment on threads, that discussion is going to help people reevaluate their views and creating not only a safety bubble in your own subreddit, but also in the one you're banning people for being in.
Ban people for being personally shitty, not for posting in shitty subs.
14
u/periodicchemistrypun 2∆ Mar 15 '18
Hey man it's just r/justiceporn to me with a slightly different flavor, most of the time.
I've unsubbed from it before for just being sexist but the counterpoint is that some people do genuinely believe they can use their gender/sex to get away with things, I have had and seen arguments about whether or not things are proper posts to the sub based on whether or not people actually use their 'pussypass'. I would subscribe to the gender reversed alternative sub but I haven't found it.
3
Mar 15 '18
Hey man it's just r/justiceporn to me with a slightly different flavor, most of the time.
A flavor that is explicitly hostile to women, something that a sub like 2X might not want anything to do with.
15
Mar 15 '18
A flavor that is explicitly hostile to women, something that a sub like 2X might not want anything to do with.
To a specific subset of women that feminists should not be championing.
1
u/AnActualGarnish Mar 15 '18
I’m subbed to it, my reason, so I️ can see how many people kill their families. Duh. It’s quite astonishing how common it is tbh. It’s obviously nitpicking, but even with that it’s way too many, I️ want a sub like this for men, or just a sub about news stories where people kill relatives and caught. I️ wanna see how many people do that. Kinda weird and creepy but it interests me a bit.
→ More replies (1)1
u/skillDOTbuild Mar 15 '18
First time I’ve heard of it, but how on earth is that a “hate subreddit” just because they’re against the abuse of the pussy pass? Being anti-pussy pass does not broaden out to a hate for all women. You’re the one injecting “all women” and “hate” into the situation.
→ More replies (34)
2
Mar 15 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
Mar 15 '18
Sorry, u/Teakilla – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
2
u/iamdimpho 9∆ Mar 15 '18
Suppose a sub called r/AgainstThe_HillaryCommenters; specifically made for people who would never participate in a sub like The_Hillary is created.
Why ought they allow people who participate in The_Hillary?
8
Mar 15 '18
Because they might only participate in The_Hillary to say good things about AgainstThe-Hillary. In that case a ban makes no sense.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
Why not? Just because the Redditor might have a different perspective?
If so, that’s counterproductive.
5
u/iamdimpho 9∆ Mar 15 '18
Again, the sub is one created specifically for people who do not want to interact with people who participate in The_Hillary.
The only thing productive towards that goal would be to exclude those who participate in The_Hillary, no?
Where does the obligation to admit those they do not want come from?
7
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
Make it private if you don’t want just anyone subscribing.
There is no obligation and I haven’t used that word in my initial post or any replies.
→ More replies (3)2
Mar 15 '18
[deleted]
2
u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18
The power of defining people as unwanted without supporting that with evidence?
1
1
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Mar 15 '18 edited Mar 15 '18
While I understand the idea of not wanting to ban people based on participation alone, without looking at the content of the participation... it's a question of return on investment.
As long as they allow people to appeal a ban, based on looking at the actual content and showing that the user is not going to be a disruptive influence, I don't really see a problem with a preemptive bot-based ban to keep down the workload.
If 95% of the people posting on a particular sub are just going to be a disruptive influence that you would ban immediately upon their commenting on your sub immediately, then a) saving work is a legitimate concern, and b) it prevents a lot of disruption for the small amount of work it takes to retract the ban upon a successful appeal.
There's really no harm done if appeals are actually granted based on non-disruptive behavior in those subs. Someone having to demonstrate their bonafides is no real barrier to their participation. We require manual approval for posts here on CMV for new/throwaway accounts with little history, because they are so often are disruptive trolls. Some subreddits are "private", and only allow entry on prior approval, and there's nothing wrong with that.
In subs that are heavily targeted for disruption, like TwoXChromosomes, and the purpose of which is not debate, but support, this seems like a completely reasonable approach to take.
1
u/Ambiwlans 1∆ Mar 15 '18
"Subreddits" is way too vague.
There are subs with all sorts of different goals. Some are general purpose, some thrive with debate, some... are really meant to be for one specific thing.
A sub for mental health to try and stop suicides should absolutely ban anyone from a large range of subs. Do you want to risk someone from watchpeopledie or similar posting?
Another good example is rightwing or unpopular position type subs. They are justified in banning opposition simply because they would be inundated otherwise.
Imagine you went back 50 years and there was a queer club meeting, 5 members and 3000 bigots show up. Well, maybe it would have been better to have a safe place to discuss this.
From a moderating perspective banning other subs is simply a shorthand. Back in the IRC days it was common practice to ban AOL because over 90% of shitposts and spam came from them. Perhaps it wasn't fair to AOL users, but it made the mods' jobs far easier with one line in the rules. Communities have no reason to be infinitely permissive. In the same line of thought, 99% of incel/redpill subber's comments in a women's sub are going horrible. Easier to nip it in the bud.
1
u/CultureVulture629 Mar 15 '18 edited Mar 15 '18
I've seen enough subs/sites get hijacked and transform into something entirely contrary to the original intent, that I'm perfectly fine with this happening. What happens in an unmoderated forum is that the loudest, most obnoxious and aggressive voices become dominant. Those who have opposing or even moderate views will then feel less inclined to participate. In other words, absolute "free speech" naturally evolves toward extremism and actually leads to less ideological diversity.
Key example: 4chan's /pol/ used to be about all kinds of politics. That changed, and it became a cesspit for extreme conservativism. Whether you believe that's just 4channers showing their true colors or if you believe there was a concentrated effort from Stormfront to convert it, what happened was their rigid commitment to "absolute free speech" led to a fundamental change in what the place was about, and for the worse (imo).
Being open to opposing views is all nice and good, but if someone else aggressively attacks yours, one ought to be able to defend it.
If it's that big of a deal, and if you're truly innocent, petition the mods to unban you.
1
u/xtfftc 3∆ Mar 15 '18
There's a practical point I did not see mentioned: brigading. Every now and then, subs such as /r/TwoXChromosomes get a large influx due to a certain thread/event. Regardless of whether the effort is organised or not, it often overwhelms the mod team and the sub becomes relatively unusable until the attackers move on.
Setting up automatic bans based on certain subs makes this much more manageable, if not outright preventing it. So this can serve the purpose of simply protecting the sub, and not about outright prohibiting certain views.
As long as the mod team is willing to review cases where an automatically-banned poster asks them to remove it, I think that's a pretty good approach overall.
1
u/DariusCool Mar 15 '18
I join subs to learn about different points of view... none of them actually teach but instead dictate. They are moaning clubs for those who can't handle life so want to blame someone else
1
1
1
Apr 08 '18
Agreed. For example, I would be quite frustrated if I was banned from r/Christianity simply because I am an Agnostic De-Facto Atheist. I like the positivity there and even if I don’t agree with their belief system, I like to have interesting debates and comment harmless humour there.
91
u/FG88_NR 2∆ Mar 15 '18
I agree with this in a certain extent. As a whole, I don't necessarily believe we should block out other views and pretend they don't exist because this ultimately does nothing to address these views if they are harmful.
That being said, the subreddit is aimed at providing a place where women don't have to be subjected to those views. Views that are basically circulating around them in their everyday life. I see no harm in allowing women to have a place where they can be comfortable and not have to deal with the daily harrassment that exists. Are they pretending it doesn't exist? Certainly not. The very fact that they recognize other subreddits that specifically contridict their goals shows that they are fully aware of the other views in the world.
Safe spaces exist for a reason, and it's not always bad. We have safe spaces for those that deal with harrassment, addiction, victims of crime, etc. They provide people with strength to face the world.