Reddit is breaking the law

Alex Barnes8 said:I still don't quite get why this post got flagged. 🤷

Sean Cook2 said:Perhaps some technicality regarding the links—nothing too major.

Sean Cook2 said:Which ones didn't end up getting penalized elsewhere.

• Article 6.
• For posts in foreign languages, an English summary is required! You don't need to translate the whole thing; just recap the main point in one or two sentences. Posts without summaries might be deleted.
• Links aren't a substitute for actual content. When you drop a link, include a brief note about what's behind it (title, summary, or a key quote). It needs to be clear why the page matters to the topic at hand.

Charles Fox10 said:Fine, here it is:

• Article 6.
• For posts in foreign languages, an English summary is required! You don't need to translate the whole thing; just recap the main point in one or two sentences. Posts without summaries might be deleted.
• Links aren't a substitute for actual content. When you drop a link, include a brief note about what's behind it (title, summary, or a key quote). It needs to be clear why the page matters to the topic at hand.

The issue is that some young women—and even certain women—take any critique of female behavior written by a man as an absolute insult or pure hate.

Sean Cook2 said:My thread regarding a banned user's clone was shut down yesterday—Sean Cook2 sent me a PM explaining why—but since I never received an answer to my other question, which I assume doesn't violate any site rules, I'm re-posting it here.

So—given those bold claims, shouldn't this post have at least earned a red card? If posts like this go unpunished, the outlet is essentially permitting gender discrimination—which could lead to legal action under Article 36 of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Media outlets that broadcast content—or run ads—portraying men or women in an offensive, belittling, or degrading way based on gender or sexual orientation will face fines for violations up to... $333333

.

Sean Cook2 said:Daniel Ward8, is it really okay that this post went unpunished? I see Charles Fox10 over there trying to justify himself as if

The issue is that some young women—and even certain women—take any critique of female behavior written by a man as an absolute insult or pure hate.

Is this still just an administrative question about whether we're taking critiques of women's behavior too seriously?

slybison8 As stated by...
Without getting bogged down in the specifics of my dispute with that particular user and their endless posts, I really only want to address your point regarding how you’re applying the law in this case. To be blunt, Reddit can't exactly be held liable under any provision of the Equal Rights Amendment, as they aren't violating it through their site content, let alone through their advertising...

The posts found on Reddit aren't some kind of curated "programmed content" designed by a central authority... they are quite simply, and exclusively, the private expressions of the users themselves...What they release to the public is exactly what they must take full responsibility for, yet we have to look at the underlying principle established by the updated ZKP. In cases involving online defamation, the new law actually stripped away the ability to sanction entire websites for such claims. Instead, it shifted the entire burden toward a single requirement: forcing those platforms to hand over the specific identity—essentially just an IP address—of any individual suspected or accused of defaming someone else on the internet...

Furthermore, attempting to frame the questioning of specific legislative measures as a violation of the law within the context of public discourse is a fundamentally flawed argument... if we were to apply such a rigid criterion, it would become virtually impossible to ever amend any significant piece of legislation, which completely defeats the entire purpose of a functioning democracy...

Reddit could only be held liable under that specific law if their board of directors made decisions that actively discriminated based on gender—for instance, if they banned women from certain features while allowing men full access, or if they applied their moderation rules and sanctions inconsistently depending on whether the rule-breaker was male or female... But in the particular scenario you’ve highlighted, such liability for Reddit simply doesn't exist...

Charles Fox10 said:The administration didn't write that; I did, within the context of that specific debate. Once a few young ladies pointed out how one-sided my phrasing was, I corrected it immediately.

slybison8 said:Without really getting into the specific issue regarding that user and their particular posts, I suppose I should only address your mention of the law in this case. I guess Reddit cannot be penalized under that specific section of the Equal Rights Amendment, since it isn't violating it through its own programmed content, let alone through advertising.

User posts aren't "programmed content," but rather just their own private content that they share publicly, for which they bear full responsibility. This is a principle that was also upheld in the new ZKP, which, when dealing with sanctions for online libel, excluded the possibility of penalizing websites for such claims; instead, it simply requires them to disclose the identity (the IP address) of an individual suspected or accused of online libel to the proper authorities.

Furthermore, I think questioning certain legal solutions can hardly be interpreted as a violation of them within the context of public debate, because if we used that criterion, it would be almost impossible to ever change most laws—and I don't believe that is the purpose of democracy at all.

Reddit could only be held liable under that article of the law if its management discriminated against a specific gender through their decisions—for instance, if they banned women from doing something they allowed men to do, or if they applied rule enforcement inconsistently based on the gender of the violator, or something similar. But in the specific situation you've highlighted, I don't think such liability for Reddit exists.

Sean Cook2 said:If the platform isn't liable for anything, why not just allow hate speech against certain races or nations across the board?

Let the lawyers weigh in, I suppose—but maybe we should just file a report and see how it plays out.

Even if the platform isn't legally liable, there is still a moral component—moderation decisions reveal what values a site actually stands for. That’s why I’m pushing for a statement from administration; we need to establish a standard where the belittling of men or women is no longer tolerated.

Sean Cook2 said:If the platform isn't liable for anything, why not just allow hate speech against certain races or nations across the board?

Let the lawyers weigh in, I suppose—but maybe we should just file a report and see how it plays out.

Even if the platform isn't legally liable, there is still a moral component—moderation decisions reveal what values a site actually stands for. That’s why I’m pushing for a statement from administration; we need to establish a standard where the belittling of men or women is no longer tolerated.

Jerry Rogers6 said:I'm signing onto this—I think all the supermoderators should step up and make a public statement so we can finally put these doubts to rest once and for all.

Charles Fox10 said:The administration didn't write that; I did, within the context of that specific debate. Once a few young ladies pointed out how one-sided my phrasing was, I corrected it immediately.

Jerry Rogers6 said:So you "corrected" yourself, huh? Real smooth. 😁

Charles, look—making a joke on Reddit is one thing, but systematically pushing this kind of narrow-minded bias on a platform that tries to present itself as a serious space is something else entirely.
I honestly don't get it. Is it really that difficult to conduct a coherent analysis and finally realize why such a significant percentage of the high-quality users here have been avoiding political threads for years now? 🤷

Charles Fox10 said:No, it isn't clever. When a rational person realizes something wasn't written correctly, common decency—at least for me—dictates they fix it at the next opportunity.

Sean Cook2 said:I get that nothing changes, but since his posts are still sitting in the Reddit archives, I thought having that red flag next to them might at least signal that this kind of rhetoric isn't tolerated.

Once the user was banned, my actual concern wasn't about the flagging—it was whether it's acceptable for posts like that to go unpunished in the first place.

That type of discourse isn't welcome anywhere on Reddit, and the moderators did their job.

The moderators could have been faster and more effective, but fine.

Sean Cook2 said:Daniel Ward8, is it really okay that this post went unpunished? I see Charles Fox10 over there trying to justify himself as if

The issue is that some young women—and even certain women—take any critique of female behavior written by a man as an absolute insult or pure hate.

Is this still just an administrative question about whether we're taking critiques of women's behavior too seriously?

slycrane94 said:What exactly makes it so illegal and disgusting, if you don't mind me asking?