Just as sister sub
r/TumblrInAction got their red letter
a week ago,
we got ours today
. Included are the responses from me and
u/GammaKing .
Here's our AEO numbers at the time of writing:
- 9 removals for threats of violence
- 5 removals for explicit racism
- 13 removals for use of slurs
- 1 removal for dox
- 13 removals for transphobia
- 6 removals for unknown reasons
Frankly, most of the AEO removals would've been pulled by us anyway, and in two cases, they actually
were removed by us. So, before I continue any further, it's necessary to reiterate that Rule 4 exists, and using slurs unironically is not allowed. The most common one that was used was "faggot," and all instances were used specifically to disparage gay people. So knock that shit off.
Now here's the meat of the issue: 47 removals over the last three months does
not indicate an "uptick" in removals. While we could understand this line being used for
r/TumblrInAction, given the 110 removals over there, it absolutely
does not make sense for us. We've been fairly consistent with AEO removals here, and haven't received indication that we were somehow having issues with rules enforcement. And keep in mind, we only hired new mods a month ago to keep up with the report brigading, so with half the staff, we were still managing fairly well by the admins.
Which brings me to the crux of the issue—how we moderate. Our first rule, the one we've had since this sub was founded, was to reiterate sitewide rules. It was a reminder that we will still enforce what Reddit says we have to enforce. As such, we moderated with those rules as written, and as we interpreted them. We did not interpret these rules to mean that denying someone's self-identity, or their claimed lived experiences, was considered "promoting hate." We still do not interpret them as such.
This is what we asked admins when we received the same "uptick" notice in
r/TumblrInAction:
A lot of the AEO removals we've seen were for comments denying that trans men and women were men and women, respectively. I presume they were pulled because they fall under promoting hate based on identity/vulnerability, but there wasn't a clear indication of that in the sitewide rules. So the question is, when it comes to discussion about trans people/trans identity, where is the line drawn? Is invalidating the identity of anyone who identifies as trans considered promoting hate? And to that regard, is that limited to binary trans people, or does that also include people who identify as nonbinary, xenogender, or who use neopronouns, and etc.?
This is the response we received:
Our rules about hateful content, do cover targeting LGBTQ+ individuals, or anyone else based on their identity.
This is a canned response that only half answers the question. Of course the rule about hateful conduct would cover trans people—that's written into the rule itself, and that wasn't even our question. The idea that
any sort of identity invalidation counts as hateful conduct leads to more questions. Is Reddit violating its own rules by banning the "superstraight" subs?
Aren't subs like
r/fakedisordercringe and
r/truscum also in violation because they're actively denying how people self-identify? Are comments like "catgender is not a thing" or "emojis cannot be pronouns" actionable?
Perhaps the admins are also having the same issues with setting the line, and have to give a canned answer like that in order to justify removing the "trans women aren't women" posts for being transphobic. But even if such a rule is limited to trans people, it stands to reason that all xenogenders would also be covered under this rule, which opens up its own can of worms. And even if it
was just limited to binary trans people, would it still be "promoting hate" for lesbians to say that they wouldn't date or have sex with a trans woman?
See, this is why we moderate the way that we do, because otherwise, we'd have to constantly redraw and refine the lines for our enforcement, and AEO
still might remove something that we didn't think was wrong. The clearer the rules are, the better we can enforce them, which is why we've again asked for clarification regarding identity invalidation as "promoting hate."
While we are willing to work with the admins on sitewide rules enforcement, we will not compromise our principles. As we've always said, without any clear rulings about what content is and is not allowed, we will moderate based on how we understand the rules as written. At the moment, we do not have believe that any posts or comments that invalidate someone's identity are actionable. If the admins disagree, they should issue a more concise ruling, one that we hope would be public so that other subs that are either over- or under-moderating might also be better served. Frankly, I believe that the matter should be opened for public discussion, outside of private mod councils or Discord channels, because the rule would become a Pandora's Box if not written properly.
If we get banned, we get banned. There is currently no exit strategy for
r/SocialJusticeInAction, though some ideas have been thrown around before. If we commit to one, we will let you know.
Until then, stay sharp.
www.reddit.com
