Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

Reddit Imposes Ban On Sexual Content Posted Without Permission 311

Posted by samzenpus from the permission-slip-or-get-out dept.
Mark Wilson writes If you want to post naked pictures or videos of people on Reddit without their consent, you only have a couple of weeks to do so. As of March, the site is imposing a ban on content of an explicit nature that the subject has not given permission to be posted. The cleanup of the site comes hot on the heels of news from Google that explicit content will be banned from Blogger. It also comes in the wake of last year's Fappening which saw a glut of naked celebrity photos leaked online.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reddit Imposes Ban On Sexual Content Posted Without Permission More

Reddit Imposes Ban On Sexual Content Posted Without Permission

Comments Filter:

  • verified (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 25, 2015 @11:06PM (#49133893)

    What's this mean for the gone wild boards... verified posters only?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Lie and say you have permission?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gl4ss ( 559668 )

        basically, yeah.

        changes nothing really, it's not like that material you didn't own copyright for was ok before.

        so what's the change? ten cents?

    • I'd say this is directly aimed at the GoneWild boards, actually.

    • The main gone wild boards already required verification.

  • Slashdot lucks out (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 25, 2015 @11:07PM (#49133899)

    Lucky that slashdot's commenting system is so ancient and crappy it doesn't have to worry about people uploading gifs or anything else that isn't ascii.

  • Reddit sure loves it's free speech. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xac ( 841406 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2015 @11:14PM (#49133927)
    Until it tries to uphold it.

  • Crazy at the helm (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 25, 2015 @11:26PM (#49133985)

    I get the feeling Reddit is about to implode. Their new CEO Ellen Pao has a history of getting herself involved in sexual affairs with married co-workers and then filing sexual harassment lawsuits against her employers. That's how she makes her living, positioning herself to be "harassed" then suing over it. Her husband, who is gay, no kidding, is another lawsuit troll who sues his own employers and even his landlord over claims of racial discrimination, meanwhile he runs a hedge fund which is likely to be a Ponzi scheme and is under federal investigation.

    This interesting power-couple is about to need money again. I give Reddit about six more months before she storms off and then hits them with a $50 million lawsuit for sexual harassment.

    • Re:Crazy at the helm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tompaulco ( 629533 ) on Thursday February 26, 2015 @01:30AM (#49134519) Homepage Journal
      I wouldn't say doing it once (at least the suit, have no idea or evidence about the affairs) represents a "history". If she sues Reddit next, then I would call it a history. Also, the information I see says that it was not a harassment suit, but a gender discrimination suit. Hard to claim gender discrimination when they make her a CEO. Although I would suspect a guy could probably make a good claim (that would be thrown out because discriminating against males is okay) that Reddit is just hopping on the bandwagon of female CEOs and are thus illegally discriminating based on gender.
      Now, if she is really getting involved in affairs with employees, I might go get me a job at Reddit. She's one hot CEO. I'll get my wife's permission first, or course.

    • Re:Crazy at the helm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lucm ( 889690 ) on Thursday February 26, 2015 @01:34AM (#49134535)

      I was curious about your comment and ended up binge reading stuff about Pao. Based on what I've read, you are spot on.

      Fascinating stuff. Thanks for sharing.

    • Time to apply at reddit and do Ellen a favor!

  • Not surprised (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Iamthecheese ( 1264298 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2015 @11:40PM (#49134043)
    Reddit's decline started before the censorship of Gamergate. It started before the Something Awful forums invaded SRS and turned it into a joke. It's never was about gender wars. (although some of those events were symptomatic) It was never about politics. (although political vote warring and karma whoring added to the mess.)

    Reddit's decline started the first time legal speech that no one liked was censored. It was an unpopular board. It was a popular decision to ban it despite it not violating rules. I'm not going to name the subreddit that was deleted because which sub it started with is irrelevant.Reddit administration banned a board, signaling that any sufficiently unpopular speech could be removed at will by administration. From that moment those seeking to remove various forms of speech started to work toward influencing admins.

    Some people will applaud this action, saying that no one should have their private pictures posted without their consent. Some people will call this an issue of right to privacy. Those people are misguided.

    When a forum starts to limit legal speech a slowly growing cancer of censorship is inevitable. And don't say, "slippery slope". This has happened over and over and over. It doesn't matter whether people should be posting such pictures. It doesn't matter how distasteful they are. It doesn't matter what intent the poster has. Or how distasteful the poster is. Or the reader. It happened at Digg. It has happened in certain churches. It has happened in Korea. It happened in Russia and China. "It's okay to ban this kind of speech" is never. Never true.

    • Jailbait (Score:4, Informative)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2015 @11:51PM (#49134089)

      You mean the jailbait subs or the sub where the teacher was uploading upskirt pics of students?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lgw ( 121541 )

        Doesn't sound like the "legal" content the OP was talking about to me. My guess would be some racist theme, just like Slashdot started deleting racist posts once Dice bought them.

    • Re:Not surprised (Score:5, Informative)

      by Gr33nJ3ll0 ( 1367543 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2015 @11:57PM (#49134109)
      The Free Speech provision of the constitution covers government, not private, censorship. Further, you've never been guaranteed freedom from the consequences of said speech, like having it removed because it's unpopular.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Iamthecheese ( 1264298 )
        Free speech isn't just an American's right, it's a human right. Protecting it is necessary for prosperity and freedom whether you're in the US or in North Korea. I never said "Reddit shouldn't do this because it's against the constitution."

        Reddit shouldn't be doing this because it tends to violate an innate human right and because it will destroy Reddit. And since I see you're inclined to take my words out of context I have to say the following: Your next argument would probably be, "yeah right. Posting re

        • Re:Not surprised (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jdavidb ( 449077 ) on Thursday February 26, 2015 @12:21AM (#49134239) Homepage Journal

          Reddit shouldn't be doing this because it tends to violate an innate human right and because it will destroy Reddit

          That's Reddit's choice to make, though, right? Just use some other forum.

        • Re:Not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Skidborg ( 1585365 ) on Thursday February 26, 2015 @02:28AM (#49134727)
          Is slashdot violating a human right by not publishing my cupcake recipes? Isn't that violating my right to free speech? No. Forcing an individual or company to facilitate my speech is not a right, and never has been.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Is slashdot violating a human right by not publishing my cupcake recipes? Isn't that violating my right to free speech? No. Forcing an individual or company to facilitate my speech is not a right, and never has been.

            1 (18.25 ounce) package white cake mix
            1 1/4 cups water
            1/3 cup vegetable oil
            3 egg whites
            8 drops red food coloring
            2 drops raspberry candy oil

            Preheat an oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C). Line a standard muffin tin with paper cupcake liners.

            Beat the cake mix, water, vegetable oil, and egg whites togethe

        • Free speech has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Your freedom has ALWAYS ended where mine began. Your free speech rights ENDS where it would violate my right to privacy.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by lgw ( 121541 )

        Irrelevant. Reddit can do whatever they want in terns of banning, sure, it's their site, but it's not about whether they can, it's about whether they're assholes.

        These days, I don't know where you'd go to discuss unpopular (but legal) topics - even 4chan has been overrun by SJWs.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by tsotha ( 720379 )
          There will always be a place. Reddit has simply opened the door to the next bit social media site as it slowly follows Digg (and slashdot, to some extent) into obscurity. People don't like to have their conversations constrained.

        • Those sneaky SJWs and their shadow cabal.

          Couldn't possibly be that your particular fringe brand of "I got mine; fuck all y'all" is just being recognized for what it is.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

          8chan. 4chan is kill.

          8chan gets SJWs as well, and it even lets them have their own boards. That's doing it the right way – counter speech you don't like with more speech.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      It happened at Digg. It has happened in certain churches. It has happened in Korea. It happened in Russia and China. "It's okay to ban this kind of speech" is never. Never true.

      [citation needed]

    • Re: Not surprised (Score:5, Interesting)

      by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) on Thursday February 26, 2015 @01:27AM (#49134509) Homepage

      When a forum starts to limit legal speech a slowly growing cancer of censorship is inevitable.

      1. Reddit cannot, in any way, stop you from expressing your opinion. The most they can do is refuse to facilitate said expression.

      2. I find it amusing that such a staunch proponent of True Free Speech would use such a tremendously wiggly, pro-oversight qualifier as legal In defining what they consider acceptable. Legal implies a level of trust in the state that is entirely at odds with the rest of your post.

    • When a forum starts to limit legal speech a slowly growing cancer of censorship is inevitable.

      1. Reddit cannot, in any way, stop you from expressing your opinion. The most they can do is refuse to facilitate said expression.

      2. I find it amusing that such a staunch, unyielding proponent of True Free Speech would use such a tremendously wiggly, pro-oversight qualifier as legal In defining what they consider acceptable. Legal implies a level of trust in the state that is entirely at odds with the rest of your post.

    • I can't believe you're trying to censor me!! I'll say "Slippery slope" as much as I want, it's my god dang given right as a Patriot of America!

    • If Reddit declines because someone is prevented from promulgating rape advice, I'm ok with that. Even if the advice is legal to give and print. I need reddit a lot less than I need my daughter to not be raped. And I'm active on reddit.

    • Re:Not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jklovanc ( 1603149 ) on Thursday February 26, 2015 @03:01AM (#49134841)

      When a forum starts to limit legal speech a slowly growing cancer of censorship is inevitable. And don't say, "slippery slope".

      Your first sentence is the definition of a "slippery slope" argument. You even used the most obvious word in slippery slope arguments; "inevitable". As the saying goes, "the only two things that are inevitable are death and taxes". Sure there are places where censorship has gotten out of hand but there are many more places where "censorship" has not. For example, Facebook [facebook.com] has restrictions on the content of photos.

      You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.

      Do you think because of that they will later censor political speech too? There are lots of sites that restrict sexual content and still have very broad free speech rules.

      So now breakup posts of nude pictures that were sent in strictest confidence at a time of lust and love is now a freedom of speech issue? Sorry but ruining someone else's life because they discovered you are a duchbag and you are mad at them is not protected speech.

      "It's okay to ban this kind of speech" is never. Never true.

      Sorry but we live in a world that is not as black and white as you seem to see it. Some speech needs to be restricted as it causes damage without having any redeeming qualities.

      Denial of free speech is the first act of tyranny.

      It has been but it also has been the first step in the creation of a civil society. Criminalizing libel and slander has caused people to be sure of their facts before speaking. Do you believe that accusing an innocent person of pedophilia is free speech? Accusations like that can ruin people's lives. It is impossible to prove a negative like "He is not a pedophile"? There will always be the possibility that the proof of guilt was just not found. Too many people believe the saying "where there is smoke there is fire". Sometimes it is just someone trying to ruin someone else's life. Absolutes like "Never true" cause more trouble than they solve. We should be very careful what kind of speech we restrict. I believe requiring a release to post sexual content pictures is a valid restriction.

      Everything is about balance. In this case it is the balance between the right to freedom of speech and and the right to privacy. In this specific instance the right to privacy is more important than the ability to post sexual photos of someone else. Your argument that "if they restrict this they will restrict everything" is just absurd.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mvdwege ( 243851 )

      "It's okay to ban this kind of speech" is never. Never true.

      So, it is perfectly fine to spread lies that you're a paedophile and make you lose your job. No-one has the right to remove those accusations from their forums.

      Really, you Free-Speach fundamentalist libertards are the greatest fun. No right can be absolute as long as you have to share public space with other people. Every attempt at exercising an absolute right will sooner or later come into conflict with other peoples' rights.

      If you want absolute

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Tom ( 822 )

      Some people will applaud this action, saying that no one should have their private pictures posted without their consent. Some people will call this an issue of right to privacy. Those people are misguided.

      Explain how, exactly.

      There are things that you just don't do (like, say hitting a woman [youtube.com]).

      Unfortunately, if the population is large and anonymous enough, you always have someone who does something that you shouldn't do. That's when we need a law. You understand these laws don't fall from the sky, yes? They're the written down rules of society. And society needs rules, otherwise it's not a society, it's just a mob.

      And posting sex pictures of other people without their consent is just the kind of stuff that yo

    • If a site banned the sale of goods stolen from your home, would that be censorship or refusal to join in with the thieves?

  • Looks like somebody has read the non-publicly released FCC plan to regulate the Internet for "net neutrality"

  • It also comes in the wake of last year's Fappening

    Can we get a definition of that for old farts with a UNIX beard like me? I know there was a massive hack and sale of celebrity nude photos for Bitcoin or something. Is that what this refers to? What's a Fappening?

    Yeah, I'm gonna Google it, but the editors could add a parenthetical explanation, or a link to Wikipedia, or something. I remember when Slashdot used to use built in links to everything2 - I wish they had transitioned over to Wikipedia so the clueless like me could be more easily informed.

    • Re:Fappening? (Score:5, Informative)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Thursday February 26, 2015 @12:32AM (#49134293)

      It also comes in the wake of last year's Fappening

      Can we get a definition of that for old farts with a UNIX beard like me?

      Here let me finish the rest of the cut-off quote:

      saw a glut of naked celebrity photos leaked online

      That's actually it. There's nothing more than that. The Fappening was the name given to the mass of nude celebrity photos posted online, by whoever originally posted the thread. The wording could have been better, but the full definition is actually in the summary.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

        There was another important aspect to the Fappening. Some users on 8chan were offering to hack celebrity accounts if users provided then with an email address or phone number, basically the minimum they needed to use the iCloud exploit. One was asking for cash to do anyone, celeb or not. Many anons were suggesting who should be the next victim.

        Just in case it wasn't obvious, suggesting who should be their next victim to a sex offender with the demonstrated means to carry out the offence is a crime in many p

  • What part of "Consent" Don't You Understand? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by westlake ( 615356 ) on Thursday February 26, 2015 @02:13AM (#49134667)

    I take my stand on the proposition that the publication of nude and/or sexually explicit photographs without the consent of the subject is a form of rape.

    This not art. This is not speech.

    This is humiliation. This is malice. This is revenge. This is greed. This is crime. Revenge porn [wikipedia.org]

    Free speech cannot survive in an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Free speech has to mean something more than the adolescent's desire for instant sexual self-gratification.

    In the form of an illicit photograph to masturbate by.

    I am sick and tired of the geek playing the censorship card when anyone asks him to behave like an adult.

    • I agree, but having viewed the sheer number of "nekkid selfies" we can only guess at the percentage which are truly involuntary. Even if 90% are involuntary, the Bureau of Labor Statistics should downgrade its employment projection for porn models. Reddit does the right thing with the policy, but unless they ban the imagery outright, consenting or not (like Blogger), "adolescent's demand for self-gratification", by definition, only defines the demand side of the equation. Paris Hilton film lives in perpe

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      > a form of rape

      Here comes the "everything is rape" bullshit again.

      > I am sick and tired of the geek

      And here we get to the core again: good old-fashioned nerd-bashing.

  • I don't use Reddit, but - how the H* is Reddit going to judge, evaluate, or confirm the pemission? I can post a picture of Julie Smathers naked. Is Reddit going to contact every person in the world name "Julie Smathers" to see if any of them gave their permission? And even if they did, how can they tell if she's the one in the picture? Or do I have to send an e-mail to with an attached signed autographed copy of the photo? This seems like a "call the cops" theory gone wacko.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close