Reddit at a crossroads: The inevitable clash between free speech and a desire for funding

8 Comments

It’s more a cruel coincidence than outright irony, but Reddit finds itself this week at the confluence of two streams, and both of them sum up the site in different ways — one pointing towards the past, and one towards the future. At the same time that the site has come under fire for its role in distributing stolen nude photos of celebrities, it is also rumored to be working on a venture financing round that could value the company at more than half a billion dollars. Will Reddit’s desire for funding trump its legendary commitment to free speech?

Reddit wasn’t actively involved in the hacking of iCloud accounts that led to the publication of hundreds of nude photos of celebrities such as actress Jennifer Lawrence and model Kate Upton, but the site quickly created a forum or sub-Reddit devoted to the pictures — or rather, users of the site did, since one of the unique things about Reddit is that users can create any kind of forum they wish and appoint themselves moderators of it without the company’s approval.

Open government or failed state?

The site — which is majority owned by Advance Publications, the parent company of Conde Nast, who bought it in 2006 and spun it off in 2012 — has since removed the sub-Reddit known as The Fappening, and CEO Yishan Wong made a public statement about the move, in which he tried to make it clear what Reddit would do in similar cases. Unfortunately, his comments (both in a public blog post and in a subsequent posting on Reddit itself) seemed to make the situation worse, or at least more confusing. In his blog post, Wong said:

Many interpreted this as meaning Reddit would let any kind of content appear on the site, including violent pornography and other deviant or repulsive behavior, unless that content involved a copyright issue or had to do with celebrities who might launch a lawsuit. The Verge said that if Wong’s analogy to a government was to be taken at face value, then the site would have to be considered “a failed state,” since it allowed its residents to be subjected to all manner of violent imagery and abuse without taking action.

Free speech is a double-edged sword

There’s no question that Reddit is an anarchic environment, in much the same way that its predecessor 4chan is. The Awl published a list of sub-Reddits that few people would be prepared to discuss in normal social circles, including one devoted to bestiality, another dedicated to photos of attractive-looking female corpses, and so on. And yet, it is also responsible for a number of positive things as well (Redditors recently found someone’s missing father), and is seen by many as a force for good rather than evil.

Reddit has been down this particular road a number of times already, including a public outcry involving a moderator known as Violentacrez, who ran a sub-Reddit devoted to pictures of women taken without their permission. After he was outed by Gawker — or “doxxed,” as a number of online communities call it when someone’s identity is revealed without their permission — the site removed him as moderator and banned the sub-Reddit. But others continue to be hosted that are just as bad, if not worse.

And yet, the site’s commitment to freedom of speech lies deep in its DNA, as co-founder Alexis Ohanian pointed out in a post earlier this year about his investment in Secret — an anonymous app that has also been criticized for the kind of abusive behavior it allegedly encourages in users, and for what some critics say is a lack of safeguards or protection for those who are targeted by abusers. At the time, Ohanian said:

Can Reddit bridge the gap?

The challenge for Reddit now is: How does it retain its commitment to such free-speech principles while it is trying to raise money from a group of what could be nervous or conservative venture funds? Twitter has also wrestled with its early commitment to being the “free-speech wing of the free-speech party,” and its desire to grow and generate revenue for its public shareholders has led to a form of quasi-censorship in which certain tweets and accounts are banned or hidden from users at the request of governments. But Twitter’s challenges are like a day at the beach compared with Reddit’s.

Remaining committed to free speech is hard enough when the speech you are trying to protect is violent or homophobic or repulsive in a number of other ways, but it becomes exponentially more difficult when you have investors with hundreds of millions of dollars on the line breathing down your neck. Will Reddit start to water down its commitment, in the hope that it can bridge those two divides without losing its soul? Or will it be forced to mimic Facebook, which routinely removes photos of women breast-feeding and never says why?

4chan founder Chris “Moot” Poole has talked about his commitment to free speech and the value of anonymous behavior, and also about how he never really seriously considered raising outside funding because he assumed the content of the site would make that impossible. Reddit is about to try and thread that particular needle, and what the site will ultimately look like after that process is anyone’s guess.

8 Comments

Zach Tirrell

While the nude celebrity photo scandal seems to be getting all the headlines, Reddit’s involvement in the Zoe Quinn incident and their inciting of the fake grassroots #GamerGate campaign is far more insidious and dangerous. Though, again, destroying careers and inciting fear is all being done in the name of free speech. Thanks Reddit.

jrb

be careful to distinguish between Reddit as an entity, and the people that use it. More over, as with the general public, a small portion of it are idiots and trolls. Reddit’s userbase reflects this as well as the fact that an overwhelming majority of people are good decent folk.

Ric Sansand

When you are dealing in a microcosm of real life like Reddit does, you often have to endure the good with the bad to offer true freedom of speech. Few understand as completely what being beholden to your users is like – like Reddit. When the law intercedes or rights holders go through channels to address grievance then Reddit has shown it will do what is required.

Anything else is not true freedom of speech no matter who doesnt like it.

Remember, no one owes you shit in real life and so it goes with the Internet.

Bruno Boutot

Your analysis is spot on about “the clash between free speech and the market”. Thank you for bringing clarity in this murky media crisis.

As a complement, this same situation could also be seen as “a clash between publishing and hosting.” Publishing is by definition public, hence “free speech” and “advertising” (= “the market”).

But what about “hosting exchanges between people”? Is it “public”? Not necessarily. For example: is a hotel – a hosting system – responsible for the behaviour of his clients in their room? Of course not. People are totally free to say, or do, or show, whatever they like in the privacy of their hotel room. The “government” of the hotel will only intervene if anything becomes public (like “Please shut the drapes so nobody can see you from the street”).

In the same way the “government” of Reddit could very well allow its members to do whatever they want in the privacy of some subReddits. But it would be likely at the price of their advertising (if it’s not public, it’s not a mass media, so it won’t have much advertising).

This is the conundrum of our age: the Web allows hosting exchanges between individuals, but when these exchanges become public, the content produced by individuals becomes a collective mass media and can be monetized as such, with advertising. We are seeing this same movie again and again with facebook and Twitter, and now with Reddit.

But is advertising the only way to monetize exchanges between individuals? Of course not: ask eBay, Etsy, Airbnb… Mass media (and advertising) is only the easiest way, not necessarily the best, especially in a network.

RandomAcronym

No, it’s not ok for a hypothetical hotel to knowingly allow someone to make child porn in their hotel room, thank you.

jrb

emphasis on hypothetically and knowingly. Those things haven’t happened within the context of this story.

Bruno Boutot

There are interesting answers to your very good argument. But even on Reddit, people have a persistent identity, and you don’t. I can’t argue with ghosts, only with people with whom I have the choice to build – or not – a relationship. Which is the basics of any community. Mathew believes in the value of anonymity and he is right: anonymous people can sometimes contribute important facts. But they can’t participate in a conversation: we can’t build anything on random anonymous opinions, sorry.

Comments are closed.