<redtaboo> to be fair to those that were [pinging the admins,] complete and utter silence in the faace of PI being left up isn't helpfuleither

<@spladug> you know that frequently we operate somewhat clandestinely during large shitstorms.

<@spladug> for better or worse

<sodypop> I think it's for the worse if nobody is going to at a very minimum remove personal information

____________________________________________________

<@kemitche> solidwhetstone: You are correct. Off-site, particularly with journalism/pseudo-journalism (with or without "integrity") is a much less clear line.

<solidwhetstone> hey chromakode

<@chromakode> I just wanted to say that we've been working pretty much nonstop since yesterday sorting through all this

____________________________________________________

<ManWithoutModem> start by banning /r/srs and PI

<@spladug> redtaboo: we can't control things that aren't on reddit. they could just as easily dox any of us admins too. fundamentally, they will have to face the consequences of their own actions and we can't control that.

<solidwhetstone> agreed. ban /r/srs

<solidwhetstone> it threatens reddit

<ZeroShift> Second

<ManWithoutModem> third

<GuitarFreak> third

<redtaboo> spladug~ your identity is known, and you get paid for your job

<redtaboo> we don't

<solidwhetstone> banning srs would send a message. they go unchecked right now.

<redtaboo> unless and until I get paid, I need assuarnces that the admins have my back

*** MillenniumFalc0n has quit IRC: Ping timeout: 240 seconds

<@spladug> i understand redtaboo, but i don't understand how we're supposed to prevent people we have no control over from doing shitty stuff.

____________________________________________________

<@kemitche> We don't ever want it to be one of you. But there's a limit to our power, and that limit is "stuff that's on reddit." We can't stop twitter or tumblr or anyone else from linking to jezebel. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't protect you from having it happen to you

<@spladug> thank you kemitche for saying it much better than i was.

<redtaboo> spladug~ the tumblr could very well not have correct information. And, while, we have no idea inf PIMA's post about the assault is true, and I don't trust him, we all know that's a real possiblity with this

<solidwhetstone> @admins- is banning srs an option? you seem to not be addressing that option

____________________________________________________

<solidwhetstone> @mobilefalc0n i don't care if they give me some bullshit political answer- even a nice 'we're considering all options' would be nice

<ZeroShift> ^

<@chromakode> of course we're considering all options, silly :P

____________________________________________________

<ManWithoutModem> They aren't separate issues when SRS are the people doing the doxxing. :P

<@cupcake1713> they are separate issues, ManWithoutModem

____________________________________________________

<@chromakode> isn't that giving gawker what it wants? attention?

<MobileFalc0n> Just so we're clear, posting dox is now acceptable as long as it's an off site link?

<solidwhetstone> the thing is already streisanded: (Link: http://news.yahoo.com/redditors-stand-gawker-protect-child-pornography-145854455.html)http://news.yahoo.com/redditors-stand-gawker-protect-child-pornography-145854455.html

<redtaboo> to gawker and other media that wish to irresponsibly post that information

<@spladug> MobileFalc0n: no, you're oversimplifying. as previously stated, the tumblr was banned from the moment it was first seen.

<ZeroShift> Let's not go putting words in people's mouths

<ManWithoutModem> Yeah, I was planning on doxxing Paradox on my blog and posting it to reddit. I was just wondering if that was alright.

<redtaboo> It would, temporarily, but in the long run it WOULD hurt their traffic

<MobileFalc0n> So as long as it's a link nested within another link?

<@spladug> MobileFalc0n: is it really that hard to understand that nothing is black and white and there needs to be some case-by-case review?

<MobileFalc0n> If I link to my blog, which links to Laurelai ED article, I'm not doxxing Laurelai?

<redtaboo> and other media would know that reddit doesn't stand for this

<ManWithoutModem> do you mind if I upload jailbait to my blog and post the links to reddit as well?

<GodOfAtheism> i keep seeing people blaming srs for the doxxing, but i haven't seen any evidence that they're actually responsibel

<MobileFalc0n> Spladug: sorry

<MobileFalc0n> Just frustrated

<redtaboo> GodOfAtheism~ we're not talking abut srs right now

<MobileFalc0n> I'll quit derailing now

<redtaboo> please don't muddy the conversation

____________________________________________________

<sodypop> I've always viewed anonymity as one of the core values of reddit.

<@chromakode> I do too

<ManWithoutModem> So when I go to (Link: http://reddit.com/rules)http://reddit.com/rules and see that rule #3 is "Don't post personal information," yet I see personal information that the admins have left up, I along with many others, get worried.

____________________________________________________

<solidwhetstone> does reddit recognize off-site doxxing as doxxing? or does reddit only recognize on-site doxxing?

<ManWithoutModem> ^

<@chromakode> I don't think that question makes sense

<@chromakode> can you please be more specific?

<solidwhetstone> ok let me rephrase it

<@kemitche> solidwhetstone: you're asking for a black-and-white answer to a very grayscale question.

<solidwhetstone> i'm not sure how to reword that lol. i guess what i mean is- if the mods feel like- for example- srs is fostering an environment that encourages off-site doxxing, does reddit consider that?

____________________________________________________

<@kemitche> The "black" end is: A link to a site that encourages users to look up /compile information on a reddit user and harass them. The "white" end is a respectable news source saying that such a dox happened, but without supplying any links or names or information (but what news source doesn't provide information?)

<sodypop> A redditor who is not a public figure or celebrity has their real name, photo, and username posted on a site. The site is then linked on reddit. Is that considered posting personal information?

<redtaboo> it is a behavior, for sure, and right now there is a 'this is bad, don't do it' *wink* thing going on with doxxing in certain subreddits

<solidwhetstone> ^

<ZeroShift> ^^

<redtaboo> That is the precise behaviour that should be stomped out

<@chromakode> we actively investigate all activity of that kind

<@chromakode> you may not see it, because we have to be somewhat quiet about it.

<ManWithoutModem> Then why is the jezebelle article still up?

<ManWithoutModem> has the article not been investigated enough?

<ManWithoutModem> You've had around 18 hours or so.

<sodypop> Please, let's not try to assign blame

____________________________________________________

<@chromakode> solidwhetstone, understood, but this is a particularly hairy issue and we'd really appreciate the benefit of the doubt from you

____________________________________________________

<GuitarFreak> i know there's nothing you can really do about stuff outside of reddit, but keeping it off of reddit is a start

<ZeroShift> But in certain cases, some subs refuse to remove link to PI

<@chromakode> gotcha

<solidwhetstone> @chromakode i think we're all on the same page that nothing can be done about off-site stuff

____________________________________________________

<airmandan|work> I'm just flabbergasted here

<airmandan|work> linking to a google search for "Laurelai" is a shadow-bannable PI offense

<hueypriest> we don't ban news articles for personal info. yes i know it's an insult to news to refer to gawker as that, but that is still what it is

<airmandan|work> linking to a jezebel article that has names, address, phone number, employment information, criminal records, pictures, and family info...that's a-ok, because that's "journalism"

<MillenniumFalc0n> hueypriest: where is the cut off between blog and news?

<sodypop> " Posting professional links to contact a congressman or the CEO of some company is probably fine, but don't post anything inviting harassment, don't harass, and don't cheer on or vote up obvious vigilantism. "

____________________________________________________

<hueypriest> we've never had a news site policy cause we've never really seen something like this before.

<DEADB33F> Yeah, it would have taken very little time to contact those who were doxxed and get them to confirm/deny the allegations.

____________________________________________________

<Raerth> hueypriest, was there any sort of plan or clear process in place for how to deal with people who create subreddits around legal yet morally questionable material?

<sodypop> Given Gawker's history with reddit, the precensce of PI, and the call for a witch hunt, I don't think the jezebel "article" should be given the benefit of the doubt.

<redtaboo> ^^^^^^

<MillenniumFalc0n> hueypriest: let's get down to it. If you remove news articles on a case by case basis, what about this article makes you think it shouldn't be removed?

<@kemitche> sodypop: we try not to let personal greivances affect our policy making

<Raerth> as this is something that's sure to happen with reddit's current structure, and something that's sure to cause outrage on the "front page of the internet"

<hueypriest> redtaboo if it should happen to any of you or anyone else in the future we will remove it

<sodypop> kemitche, drop that it's gawker and my poiny is still valid.

<sodypop> *point

<sodypop> Vigilantism and personal info are a dangerous combination.

<airmandan|work> hueypriest: that's a reactive solution

<redtaboo> I appreciate that reassurance, hueypriest

<airmandan|work> that's not optimal

<airmandan|work> we should not be reactive

<airmandan|work> we should be proactive

<@kemitche> airmandan|work: removing anything is reactive.

<airmandan|work> and eventually, predictive

____________________________________________________

<@kemitche> so you want us to, what, right an algorithm that figures out if a linked article or anything it links to will cause someone somewhere to get doxed?

<hueypriest> sodypop we agree that it is a dangerous combo and that's why we have a harder line against personal info than most other places

*** MobileFalc0n has quit IRC: Ping timeout: 240 seconds

<redtaboo> off topic, but not (Link: http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/11brz4/can_anyone_help_identify_this_bikini_ive_seen_it/)http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/11brz4/can_anyone_help_identify_this_bikini_ive_seen_it/ <-- why is a creepshot in 2x's spam filter getting upvotes?

<airmandan|work> kemitche: it's not about algorithms, it's about culture

<@kemitche> *write

<airmandan|work> this happened because SRS learned that they basically can do whatever the hell they feel like

<@kemitche> reddit has, by design, a very loose and non-restrictive culture

<airmandan|work> yes it does

<Raerth> kemitche, then you need to decide if reddit's going to be the lovechild of 4chan and SA, or if it's going to be the public front page of the internet

<Raerth> it cannot be both

____________________________________________________

<Raerth> I have no problem with being 4chan 2.0, but if we want to be that, we should not be surprised when we get stuff like this happen

____________________________________________________

<sodypop> With regards to the jezebel article, it feels like there has been a redefinition of what PI is when compared to all the blog posts and faq page about PI.

<sodypop> And also the other PI that has been removed in the past. It is frustrating to us when definitions shift.

<Raerth> the current drama, it's not the end of the world and it will blow over. but unless we know how to deal with future occurrences this will keep happening.

____________________________________________________

<MillenniumFalc0n> hueypriest: I don't mean to offend, but frankly when you compare this response to previous responses to PI, it makes it look like you aren't removing the article out of...fear of PR backlash I guess?

<airmandan|work> if we're going to prevent this kind of thing from happening again, we need to deal with that cancer

<redtaboo> I think this is a complete reversal from that, and I think you should stay on the previous course

<airmandan|work> I realize that we tried to split the discussion and deal with PI and SRS separately

<MillenniumFalc0n> I agree

<airmandan|work> but they're two sides of the same coin here

<airmandan|work> we can't deal with one without dealing with the other

<redtaboo> airmandan|work~ we need to keep it split right now, I think

<bep> o.o why has hueypriest not got a cloak

<@kemitche> airmandan|work: banning SRS does not kill the cancer. Please stop trying to "force" us down that route.

____________________________________________________

<airmandan|work> if I wanted reddits banned just because I didn't like them

<airmandan|work> I'd be asking you to kill /r/Republican :p

____________________________________________________

<solidwhetstone> @kemitche but you did ban a subreddit because it encouraged a certain type of behavior. and i'mi referring to /r/jailbait encouraging people to pass arond CP

<solidwhetstone> *around

<a_redditor> I'm all for banning subreddits just because the admins don't like them

<solidwhetstone> you meaning the collective 'you'

<a_redditor> get PG in here for a week

<MillenniumFalc0n> The problem is SRS's goal is to destroy reddit. Have you seen how often they float the phrase "Reddit delenda est"?

<MillenniumFalc0n> but anyways, that is a separate issue

<@kemitche> I swear to god, if one more person makes a parallel to jailbait, I'm leaving the channel for a week.

____________________________________________________

<solidwhetstone> y u mad tho?

____________________________________________________

<Raerth> kemitche, I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that being too lax in informing people what is and isn't acceptable on reddit invites people to push the limits, and when you push the limits you will have people take umbrage at that. SRS hates the fact that people push the limits, so they are fighting against it. SRS are not the problem, the problem is we have no clear guidelines on what is acceptable other than "legal stuff", by not comdeming the

<Raerth> stuff SRS hates, we are condoning it by omission.

<sodypop> I mod the two largest subreddits, what assurance do I have against a news site that somehow gets my PI and then starts encouraging a witch hunt?

<@kemitche> no, the problem is the PERCEPTION that "not condemning" = "condoning"

<Raerth> yes

<Raerth> agreed

<Raerth> and we need to correct that

<@kemitche> You don't get pissed off that the phone company doesn't listen in on everyone's conversations for domestic violence and call the police on people

____________________________________________________

<solidwhetstone> reddit =/= phone company...i think that parallel breaks down

* Raerth is not worried about being doxxed

____________________________________________________

<redtaboo> I've been wished to die over removing a picture of a cat

<Jaraxo> exactly kemitche

<redtaboo> by, PIMA.. btw

<@kemitche> You can be anonymous on reddit, but you do have to work harder at it

____________________________________________________

<Jaraxo> we can't act anonymously out in the real world, so why should we have the right to here?

<redtaboo> pima is a fuckfaced troll, bep

<Raerth> can't take this shit too seriously

____________________________________________________

<@kemitche> the root of the problem is, and always will be, that we cannot stop the rest of the internet. period. end of story. we can make policies and take actions on reddit, against activity that occurs on reddit that causes or encourages such behavior, when and if taking those actions will solve the problem instead of making it worse.

<sodypop> How many people here believe news articles should be exempted from the PI rule, and how many dont? I believe that is the focal point of the discussion here.

<airmandan|work> I don't think there should be any exemptions to the PI rule.

<sodypop> Me neither, airmandan

<Raerth> Nothing is judged by the best it can be, it's judged by the worst it can be. When someone wants to judge reddit, they won't do it by fundraising or Obama's visit, they will do it by /r/picturesofdeadniggers or /r/jailbait

<airmandan|work> raerth!

<airmandan|work> we said no JB comparisons!

____________________________________________________

<@bep> sometimes i want the admins to forward on the information of suicidal people to the police

<airmandan|work> public official is not *personal* info

<airmandan|work> it's, by definition, public data

<@bep> that way they can save them

<@kemitche> "public data"

<@kemitche> So is the jezebel stuff public then? It's in the public, due to the predditors blog.

<@kemitche> See, I can make arguments that go to extremes too

<sodypop> "public officials" are already exempted in the PI faq section

<airmandan|work> I'm not using public as a descriptor, I'm using it as a statement of ownership

<sodypop> personal information cannot stop being personal information

<sodypop> Please let's not confuse personal and private info.

____________________________________________________

<@bep> this is going nowhere, i am wandering away

<@bep> !deop

____________________________________________________

<@kemitche> sodypop: how big of a celebrity? "celebrity" is not a binary yes/no status.

<Raerth> understood ;) I'm one of the thicker skinned people anyway, just making sure you know I'm not creating a flammable effigy

*** squatly has joined #modtalk

<@kemitche> that was a rhetorical question btw; the point being that there isn't any hardline, as much as you want to make one. As much as *we* would love to have a simple, easy, hard and fast rule. And because there's no hard line, there are judgment calls involved, which means you'll sometimes get seemingly contradictory actions depending on context.

<sodypop> kemitche, we're all frustrated and none of this is directed at anyone personally.

<@kemitche> Sometimes it's contradictory due to context; sometimes it's due to mistakes on our part or on the part of a mod somewhere.

<Raerth> kemitche, I had a very unpopular suggestion: (Link: http://www.reddit.com/r/ideasfortheadmins/comments/11bh11/verify_every_account_that_wishes_to_participate/)http://www.reddit.com/r/ideasfortheadmins/comments/11bh11/verify_every_account_that_wishes_to_participate/

<Raerth> it would definitely solve 90% of the drama we see

____________________________________________________