Reddit’s censorship sucks, but it’s right to ban the haters

A couple of weeks back, Reddit announced a change in its content moderation policy.

“We will ban subreddits that allow their communities to use the subreddit as a platform to harass individuals when moderators don’t take action. We’re banning behavior, not ideas,” the note explained.

As disgruntled Redditors flocked a similar website, Voat, they quickly found themselves locked out once again as the site was shut down by its own web host for “politically incorrect” content.

The limitation of speech has always been a touchy subject in online communities, especially those that have an expectation of unabridged freedom of expression. On one hand, it is precisely this freedom that allowed Reddit to thrive and become the “front page of the internet”. On the other hand, it is the same freedom that earned it a reputation of “letting the inmates run the asylum.”

From where I stand, it’s probably for the better that online communities move towards the direction of moderated content.

The greatest value proposition of online communities is how it enables us to find like-minded individuals that believe in and enjoy the same things that we do. But maybe, just maybe, there are certain types of beliefs–vitriolic, hateful and discriminatory–that are better off without support groups. In large numbers, people are more confident to spew malice because they know that when they can no longer defend their argument, there are others who will step in to fight their battles for them–logically or otherwise. In large numbers, when will individuals ever accept that some beliefs are simply unfounded and some behaviours unwarranted?

Lukewarm criticisms of the move point out the inconsistency in Reddit’s application of its newfound sense of responsibility over the opinions behaviours it hosts.

“The problem — in my eyes, at least — appears to be a selective enforcement of this line: some vulgar subreddits are shuttered while others live on,” says TechCrunch‘s Jon Russell (hi Jon!) in his piece covering the collective objection of many Redditors to the new policy.

The concern is deeply rooted in empowering powerful companies like Reddit to decide for its members which values, ideas and behaviours are acceptable. After all, these companies are run by humans too who are defined by their own experiences.

I’m not going to be a hypocrite and say that I wasn’t initially taken aback by the announcement. (At the height of the Charlie Hebdo debate, I staunchly defended and will continue to defend the value of satire and its contribution to free speech.)

But if the choice is between arbitrary censorship and enabling all forms of harassment, I’d like to think being able to protect some groups is better than being able to protect none.