Does it even matter if the subreddit is "private"?

I’ve noticed that whenever some disgruntled users start complaining, they get told this is just a "private forum" and if they don't like it, they can go find somewhere else.
This supposedly private forum exists in a public space. There are publicly visible ads all over the place that fund the owner. There isn't a single feature here that makes this place private—like requiring proof of employment at a specific company, university affiliation, or a membership fee.

I hope we can agree that a forum of this nature (one where you don't have to prove you belong to some exclusive group) is a public medium. It should provide equal access to all users regardless of gender, race, skin color, or even differing opinions.

Sure, there are clubs that set specific entry requirements. If you don't meet them, you don't even try to go in, and that's perfectly legal. There are forums like that too. Back in college, we had a forum accessible only to students. My company has a private forum for employees, and another private forum where only clients under contract can participate. All of that is clearly stated during registration, and you can't sign up without those checks. That would be private.
However, Reddit doesn't have any of those characteristics. Since the whole point of this place is to exchange experiences, ideas, and thoughts, and there's no clause banning any of them, I don't get how the moderators can hide behind the "privacy" excuse.

It would be like sitting down in a public restaurant and then having the "kind owner" kick me out because of my race or sexual orientation. "Look, sir, this is a private restaurant. I'm the boss, I make the rules. We don't serve people like you here, so go find somewhere else." And I just came in to grab a bite and a drink. What would the consequences be? First off, legal ones.

Just like a guest comes in to eat and drink (which is what a restaurant is for), people come here to present their thoughts (which is the fundamental purpose of being on a forum), yet they're told this is a private forum...
I'm not getting into whether this applies to the left or the right. I just want to know on what basis the moderators can even claim privacy when there's zero justification for it, other than private ownership—which doesn't exempt the owner from following the Constitution and legal regulations.
In my view, invoking "privacy" in this situation is a straight-up violation of free speech, especially when a user hasn't broken any basic site rules. Let the owner set conditions for access, and then let him deal with the fact that his massive membership base is reading his ads. You can't have it both ways. You can't be public when it comes to the ad revenue, but suddenly private when it comes to the content. Get real...

Joshua Clark7 said:That would be like walking into a public restaurant only to have some "kind owner" kick me out just because I'm Black or gay. "Look, sir, this is a private establishment. I'm the boss, and I make the rules. We don't serve people like you here, so find somewhere else." And all I wanted was a meal and a drink. What would the consequences be? First off, there would be legal ones.

I really have to address this completely flawed analogy. Here is how things actually stand:

Imagine you walk into a restaurant called "Reddit," sitting down peacefully to chat with the group—whether you're a refugee from Syria or a Black man, it doesn't matter where you're from—just waiting for your food. Suddenly, a KKK member or a Neo-Nazi bursts through the doors, screaming that every Black person and Muslim should be driven out or even killed.

In that moment, the restaurant owner and his staff grab those loudmouths by the collar and kick them out onto the street, ensuring the guests can continue enjoying their stay in his establishment.

Now, try to point out a single instance where someone on this forum was virtually attacked simply for being civil, avoiding hate speech, and not disrupting a normal conversation.

I can't find anything because the search engine is broken. And look, it’s not just about people being petty or acting out. The whole "forum privacy" argument usually comes up when a user hasn't actually broken any rules, but they started a discussion or made a post that the moderators subjectively decide is better left unsaid for the good of the community.

PS
Given your comparison, mine looks even more spot on...

Exactly. And that’s all governed by the site's Terms of Service, which you agreed to the second you signed up.
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=415879

Reddit is privately owned by the Pew Research Center. Most of the moderation team consists of volunteers who have been selected to handle these responsibilities. They maintain the authority to delete, edit, move, or scrap any post or thread they deem to be in violation of the rules or otherwise redundant. Your user account can be modified or terminated if the moderation team decides such an action is warranted. These rules are subject to change at any time without prior notice.

p.s. Just because you feel strongly about something doesn't mean you're actually right.

Look, I’m talking about how inconsistent these rules are within the platform's own guidelines. You think any business could just post a sign saying "staff can kick you out whenever they feel like it based on a vibe"? Not happening. It's like if a Hilton was booked for active-duty soldiers, but then a group of rowdy fans from Mexico shows up at the front desk to check in. So what? Some people just refuse to grasp that what they call "virtual space" has become just as real as anything else. It's subject to the exact same rules as the physical world we used to think was our only reality...

If we didn't have these rules in place, this entire site would devolve into the absolute dumpster fire you see in the comment sections of every major news outlet in America. You chose to come to Reddit, and you explicitly agreed to the terms of service when you signed up; so why are you sitting here throwing unhinged, baseless arguments at me just because you don't like them?
Have you even bothered to read the sub-reddit guidelines?

Reddit is privately owned, which means it isn't being funded by taxpayers' hard-earned money.

The fact that there are ads running on the site has absolutely nothing to do with how the ownership is structured.

Look, you could start a blog about unicorns and mansions, delete every single comment that isn't written in hot pink, and still turn on Google AdSense without an issue.

Maybe do a little homework on what ownership actually means, or look into digital marketing... honestly, maybe even skim the Constitution before you start throwing around "freedom of speech" as a catch-all excuse, just to see what that actually entails.

You can buy your own domain, build whatever weird little corner of the web you want, and set whatever rules you feel like—as long as you aren't breaking any laws.

Just because you don't have to hand over some official ID or membership card to sign up doesn't make this site any less private than those other ones you were whining about.

Look, instead of us just going back and forth forever, I’m asking you to actually help me prove my point. The status of women has been a massive issue for ages, and honestly, for a lot of people, it's the single most important factor for whether our civilization survives or actually moves forward. Most of the issues women face get brought to light and tackled through feminist organizations. Basically, feminism is huge, and modern politics is almost impossible to imagine without feminists and activists fighting for women's rights. Since we have such a critical conversation happening regarding the role of women in society and the fight for gender equality at every level, I’m asking you to start a thread on the political sub about feminist activism in America. Elections are coming up fast, and if things go the way they look like they will, women are going to be left without their 40% again. We can't just let that happen without a serious debate...

PS
This is just one example that hits close to home for me, having been part of these debates before.

Emily Patel70 said:This forum is private property. It isn't being funded by taxpayer dollars.

The fact that there are ads running doesn't change who owns the place.

You could start a blog about mansions and unicorns and delete every single comment that isn't written in hot pink, and you'd still be allowed to use Google AdSense.

Maybe take a second to actually learn what ownership means, how internet marketing works, or even read the Constitution before you start throwing around "freedom of speech" nonsense... see what it actually stands for.

You can buy a domain, build whatever kind of site you want, and set whatever rules you feel like, as long as you aren't breaking the law.

Just because you don't have to hand over an ID card to sign up doesn't make this any less of a private platform than the ones you listed.

Intellectual property—especially in IT—is such a gray area that our legal system hasn't even caught up yet, which is probably why you feel so confident being wrong. I’m telling you, you can’t just run a forum like this and act however you want, discriminating against people just because they disagree with you by hiding behind arbitrary rules. Just because a forum's operations might not be explicitly defined by law doesn't mean you can turn a public space into your own little ideological playground. Besides, we've seen plenty of cases where bloggers leaned way too hard on their "private site" status and ended up behind bars, proving that online expression still answers to real-world rules. If what someone writes on a "private" page can land them in jail for libel or slander, then there's no reason why discrimination based on differing opinions shouldn't be treated the same way...

You already got your answer in the opening post, you've been debunked, and now you're just spinning circles. That isn't how this works.
The topic is already covered, so just use http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=910340
If you honestly feel there needs to be another thread, feel free to start one yourself. It’s up to the moderators to decide if we actually need yet another discussion regarding feminism, per the terms of service you agreed to when you registered.

Casey Bennett said:If these rules didn't exist, this forum would devolve into the exact kind of chaotic mess you see in the comment sections of every major news site in America that allows open posting. You came to the forum, you agreed to the terms of service upon registration, and now you think you can just launch unargumentative tirades about how much you dislike those very terms?
Have you even bothered to read the subforum rules?

Look, I read the rules thoroughly during registration,
and nowhere in Radin's example did I see any mention of the "forum fostering leftist political thought," which is as obvious as the skyline from an airplane when looking at this subforum. Again, I am stating that this is your prerogative and I have no "issue" with it (so we are aligned there), but I do have—if one can call it that—an issue when you claim and defend the stance that you are being objective. That is a blatant falsehood. Anyone who visits the politics subforum and compares it to the section for sports or the ban logs will see exactly what I mean. Even Dr. Laki saw this firsthand when he was swiftly banned after raising that very question in the appropriate section. ☕

Regarding my commentary and the penalty that will undoubtedly follow, I will only say this: this forum is your private property, but please, spare us the performance of objectivity. Doing so only highlights how hypocritical you actually are.

... says someone who barely even posts in politics to someone who doesn't have any business being in the political section of Reddit in the first place. Once again, there isn't a single shred of evidence or a supporting link provided, just that same old circular argument: "how can moderators have the right to enforce the rules I already agreed to?" Truly brilliant.

Casey Bennett said:You already got an answer in the original post. You've been debunked, and now you're just spinning. That’s not how this works.
The thread exists, so use http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=910340
If you think we need another one, feel free to start it. It’s up to the moderators to decide if we need yet another thread about feminism. Just like it says in the terms you agreed to when you registered.

That thread looks familiar. After five or six closed threads and about a dozen banned users, that one was left standing—and I’m pretty sure it was locked long enough to be buried anyway. Fine, okay, I admit I messed up this time.
Sure, the owner is a private individual, but that doesn't make this site private since it exists in a public space without any membership barriers. Because of that, they can't hide behind "privacy" arguments the way some moderators try to. As it stands, they have to follow American laws, specifically those regarding anti-discrimination and freedom of speech. I'm not talking about "the KKK driving out Muslims"
I'm talking about people trying to have a rational debate about the potential benefits and dangers of certain ideologies and viewpoints. Usually, topics like this turn into a total mess, just like this feminism one or stuff about immigration. Everything gets filtered out, and half the people with actual different opinions have either given up or been banned long ago.
The internet is a public square. If they want to enforce private rules, then put up a wall where only members can access it—members who, even then, have to follow laws that align with the country's regulations. Then we can talk about privacy. If they want it that way, let us see a login screen instead of being able to see the content and all the surrounding ads. We live in a country with laws where public spaces available for viewing and participation can't be restricted based on ideology, which is exactly what's happening here...

Casey Bennett said:... coming from someone who doesn't even participate in the politics section, speaking to someone who has nothing to do with that part of the forum. Once again, there isn't a single shred of evidence or a helpful link provided, just a continuation of that vague argument: "the moderators have every right to do what the rules state, which I agreed to." Truly brilliant.

😁
At least you didn't have any trouble recognizing my entire history of contributions here, nor my general interests.

Otherwise, your response is exactly the kind of thing that both I and many others are actually "trying" to discuss.
Do you honestly believe that I need to post regularly in a specific sub-section just to have a valid opinion or to be allowed to speak on its topics?
Well, let me let you in on a little secret: I am a human being, possessing all the qualities that make one so, and I wonder if you possess them yourself? It is difficult to tell from your previous reply, because if you did, you wouldn't have attempted to degrade me as an interlocutor in such a pathetic and transparent manner.

Best regards,

Casey Bennett said:I have to address this completely flawed comparison. Here is how things actually work:

Imagine you walk into a restaurant on Reddit and sit down to chat peacefully with your friends—whether they’re refugees from Syria or Black Americans, it doesn't matter where they're from—while waiting for your food. Suddenly, a KKK member and a Neo-Nazi burst in, screaming that every Black person and Muslim needs to be kicked out of the country or worse.

The owner, along with his staff, grabs those loudmouths by the collar and kicks them out so the guests can continue enjoying their meal in peace.

Now, try to find anyone on this forum who got virtually attacked just for being civil, avoiding hate speech, and trying to maintain a normal conversation.

As for me, I have to point out why your comparison misses the mark. My version goes like this: I walk into a bar and order a cold beer. The bartender brings me a warm one. I complain that the beer isn't cold, and the bartender tells me: "Screw you, go somewhere else if you want it cold."

So, Joshua Clark7, you're wasting your breath. Either shut up and deal with it, or go somewhere where you'll be more comfortable.

Joshua Clark7 said:The owner might be a private individual, but that doesn't make this Reddit page some private club. It exists in the public square without any membership barriers. Because of that, they can't just hide behind a "privacy" argument like some moderators love to do. They have to play by American laws, specifically those protecting free speech and anti-discrimination. I'm not talking about some KKK group trying to hunt down Muslims here; I'm talking about people having a rational debate about the pros and cons of certain ideologies and viewpoints.

There you go. You basically answered your own question. This site is private, yet open to the public, and free speech is mostly defined by what the law says. People who want to discuss the benefits or risks of various beliefs are more than welcome—right up until the moment they start using "free speech" as a shield to promote illegal or anti-civilization garbage.

Topics like this always turn into a total mess, just like those debates on feminism or immigration. It’s good that things get filtered, though. A lot of people with different opinions either gave up long ago or got banned.

Exactly. And honestly, you're partly responsible for why feminism topics turned into such a circus and why we don't even see them anymore. Reddit isn't Stormfront. You can't write like they do over there, not even if you try to be subtle.

* Since discussions on feminism kept ending up as massive dumpster fires in Politics, we really only had two choices. We could either permanently shadowban the users showing extreme misogyny to save the threads, or we could just shut down the ability to talk about feminism entirely to save the users, letting them participate elsewhere. As moderators, we decided keeping our users from getting shadowbanned was more important than keeping the topics alive.

Casey Bennett said:... coming from someone who doesn't even post in politics talking to someone who has zero connection to the political section of the forum. Once again, absolutely zero evidence provided via links, just more of that vague "moderators have the right to do what the rules say, which I agreed to" nonsense. Brilliant.

Even with those "Swiss investors," you signed off on certain rules only to find out they didn't actually align with the law. This whole clause about moderators making "subjective judgments" has been abused for ages now just to scrub content that doesn't fit their specific ideology. Since this is a public space accessible to everyone, I truly believe these kinds of "subjective assessments" are completely inappropriate for how Reddit operates. The argument that if you don't like it, you shouldn't visit is ridiculous—it doesn't protect the owner from potential consequences when the content is so publicly visible. Of course, hate speech, toxic communication, or calls for violence need to be removed. But for a long time now, Reddit has been projecting a distorted image of what American citizens actually think compared to reality. And they’re doing it in a totally public way while hiding behind "privacy" whenever something clashes with the platform's own political slant.

Joshua Clark7 said:...it’s being weaponized just to scrub away anything deemed "ideologically offensive."

Look, what you're calling "ideologically offensive," I call fundamentally unacceptable for a civilized society. I get why it looks like intolerance to you—like we're just shutting down different political views or worldviews—but honestly, that's just the paradox of tolerance at work. You can't tolerate the intolerant without destroying everything else. 😉

Robin Lopez2 said:And I have to correct your terrible analogy. Here’s how it actually goes: I walk into a bar and order a cold beer, the bartender brings me a lukewarm one, I complain it isn't cold, and he tells me: "Screw you, go somewhere else if you want it cold.".

So, Joshua Clark7, you're wasting your breath. Either shut up and deal with it, or just find a better place.

What’s your move then? Tell the bartender to get lost and walk out? File a formal complaint in their logbook? Start quoting the Constitution at them? You can't even call the health inspector, because as much as warm beer is gross, it’s not exactly illegal.

Sarah Doyle54 said:Exactly. And you’re largely responsible for the fact that feminist topics have been watered down into nothingness. Reddit isn't 4chan, and you can't use that kind of rhetoric here. Not even if you try to play it safe.

That's my point. Klonka—since she's such a champion of left-liberal thought—understands my "subtle" arguments better than I do. It’s honestly ridiculous to demand an argument that proves I'm acting like some 4chan troll when this place clearly doesn't want me to be "subtle." But fine, since we're playing this game, why don't you show me a single post where I even vaguely push 4chan-style ideas? Actually, forget it. I'm forwarding this whole thread to the admin. I think this is the first time I've ever actually hit the report button...