Warning users that upvote violent content

[u/worstnerd]

Today we are rolling out a new (sort of) enforcement action across the site. Historically, the only person actioned for posting violating content was the user who posted the content. The Reddit ecosystem relies on engaged users to downvote bad content and report potentially violative content. This not only minimizes the distribution of the bad content, but it also ensures that the bad content is more likely to be removed. On the other hand, upvoting bad or violating content interferes with this system. 

So, starting today, users who, within a certain timeframe, upvote several pieces of content banned for violating our policies will begin to receive a warning. We have done this in the past for quarantined communities and found that it did help to reduce exposure to bad content, so we are experimenting with this sitewide. This will begin with users who are upvoting violent content, but we may consider expanding this in the future. In addition, while this is currently “warn only,” we will consider adding additional actions down the road.

We know that the culture of a community is not just what gets posted, but what is engaged with. Voting comes with responsibility. This will have no impact on the vast majority of users as most already downvote or report abusive content. It is everyone’s collective responsibility to ensure that our ecosystem is healthy and that there is no tolerance for abuse on the site.

[u/MajorParadox]

Does this take into account edits? What if someone edited in violent content after it was voted?

[u/MajorParadox]

I see the benefit, but could it be possible this makes people paranoid about voting? Especially to be safe when they're not sure if it counts. The ratio between viewers and voters can already be so high. Will you be monitoring to see if there's an effect like that?

[u/[deleted]]

Similar to how quarantined communities work, will there be some sort of "are you sure you want to upvote this content?" warning before they vote?

[u/[deleted]]

[u/cxtx3 → u/[deleted]]

In light of recent events and shifting attitudes toward the emerging gilded age oligarchy, and the general support of folk like Luigi Mangione, the timing and vagueness of this absolutely feels like an attempt at stamping out any conversation aimed at dismantling the power structures taking root. Am I certain of this? Absolutely not. Does this seem highly plausible? It does.

Edit: In thinking about this more, upvoting doesn't always necessarily mean "I agree with this statement," it can be something like "I feel it is important to increase visibility on this statement." Some people also upvote things to mark what they have read. Banning people for up voting anything assumes intent behind the person hitting the up vote button, which may or may not be the case. What this does in effect is manipulate user behavior, which feels gross on a lot of levels.

Edit: HA, I, too, finally got the vague warning from Reddit. Things to note: they don't specify which comment or post you upvoted, don't allow you to reply, and don't give you a chance to appeal. This is 100% meant to scare people and/or suppress communication Reddit doesn't like. Gross.

[u/PrimeusOrion]

This seems like a bad move. People often upvote to express support for the sentiment of a work and not the content of it.

I can see a case where, given reddit bad history with the subject, someone could write a violent but otherwise innocuous comment like "pedophiles like this deserve to be shot" under a legitimate case of pedophilia. But have their comment get removed regardless as it is technically arguing for violence against a group for a trait.

People who upvote something like that might not think that people should be litteraly gatheree up and shot but upvote in the sense of supporting the sentiment that strict action against pedophilia is necessary (a logical but not litteral interpretation of the quote).

In that sense by warning or as you suggest banning them all you will do is curb speech even when it's speech most would consider normal or admirable because the litteral interpretation seems unsavory to a small, knowingly falible, group of people.

.

And then there's the practicality of the subject. People rarely upvote comments in singularity. Often when you click on a post you scroll through and upvote many comments at once. So what if you upvote multiple comments in a section and a few get removed?

Does it suddenly warrent a ban or warning for an action one could do in less than a miniute? One that people will often do hundreds of times a day? Let alone the fact that you can easily upvote a comment or post accidentally on mobile

.

From there what about mass reporting? I myself am apart of a few subs which suffer from users from other subredits openly mass reporting content (and often brag about it).

We know reddit has an auto removal feature. Are we going to end up with a system where brigaders are able to mass ban hundreds to thousands of accounts by flagging reddit automod? I don't know about you but I don't want to use a reddit where a cabal of people are able to selectively mass ban (or even mass warn) people even if it's only until reddit admins clear their flooded report inboxes.

[u/DO_NOT_GILD_ME]

This why so many of us are leaving. Thanks for wrecking Reddit. It's turned into an absolute shell of what it once was. An absolute censored dumpster fire.

It used to be something great. Where freedom of expression and speech reigned. Where people could build communities around common interests, share information and learn from each other.

More recently, I got suspended for correcting an inaccurate comment with a factual, cited reply. My appeal was rejected. 25 years I've been a journalist and I've never been censored like that. You should be ashamed.

Social media platforms like this thrive because of engaged users. Now I have to be scared to engage with something as inane as the up and downvote buttons? LOL. It's a joke. I don't even know what you consider violent.

We could be sharing important news, showing violence because it sensitizes people to ongoing struggles in certain areas. Fight videos help teach us what to do and not to do during an altercation. Subs like hold my feeding tube provide insight into careless actions. Now I have to think carefully before every vote? What an insane policy.

You're not only hurting Reddit, but you're taking a powerful community-shaping tool and dulling it down to a turd. This is what Elon Musk did to X and Zuckerberg did to Meta. This is what Google is doing to all its platforms as well. This is clearly part of something bigger — an attempt to take away our freedom of communication, sharing and learning.

Congrats on losing long-time, dedicated users like me who have been on here since the earliest of days, driving up engagement through comments and posts — bringing people to your website by participating.

You're a joke now. It's both sad and hysterical. Goodbye.

[u/python-requests]

According to Reddiquette, upvotes & downvotes are supposed to be used for whether something contributes or distracts from the discussion. Penalizing someone for upvoting violent content seems to be taking the false view that upvotes are a sign of support, rather than this website's own viewpoint that they are a sign of value to discourse.

You can't imagine a case where violent content still contributes to more vibrant or valuable discussion, & therefore a user may correctly choose to upvote it? Even if it is rule-breaking, relying on ordinary users to identify & police this fact, balance it against the conflicting 'valuable discussion' standard, & penalize them if they are incorrect, seems to be a tall order. Not to mention the potential chilling effect it may have on users upvoting anything other than complete banal content. Why not simply rely on paid staff to enforce the rules of the site? Lack of profitability?

[u/MyBrainReallyHurts]

This is a slippery slope. Since its inception, Reddit has relied on the users to upvote or downvote content. Now you want to regulate content and punish any user that interacts with it?

What about r/movies? There are violent movies, will those upvotes get a user a strike? If reddit is told to decrease the amount of nude images from consenting adults, will we be punished for upvoting the content? What about the subreddit for guns? A gun is a violent weapon so are you going to give a warning to a user that upvotes a post about an old gun that is being restored? Where does it end?

Either document exactly what content is and isn't acceptable and do the responsible thing and remove the content yourselves, or let the site work as it is intended. It is your site and your terms of service, but Lemmy and Digg are looking better by the day.

[u/Agent_03 → u/MyBrainReallyHurts]

Also what about cases where the intent is a response to violence?

For example, Trump has been "joking" about annexing Canada (read: unprovoked invasion). Voicing support for that is explicitly a call for violence. But I have yet to see a single user actioned for supporting annexation, or a single piece of content (comment or submission) removed for it.

But what happens to Canadians that say "if you invade us, we will fight back"? My guess is Reddit will first warn users for supporting that, then ban them. (And if it comes to that situation, my prediction is that Trumpist invaders/occupiers would be in for a very rude awakening.)

Edit: If you are getting warned/banned and the comments you upvoted were only "if you invade Canada we will defend ourselves" (did not include other calls for violence): I would strongly encourage reaching out to your MP with documentation. That's Reddit, as a major tech platform, taking an official stance that they do not recognize or respect Canadian sovereignty. I imagine Parliament will have some thoughts on that and on Reddit's right to continue to do business in Canada if they take that official stance.

Edit2: Also involve media in that case. I don't know which Canadian media outlets (maybe the Toronto Star?) would be open to an article on this, but I do know that The Verge and Wired have covered previous Reddit controversies and protests.