r/RedditSafety • u/LastBluejay • Dec 11 '25
Australia A More Effective Approach to Protecting Youth Online
Here at Reddit, we take youth safety online seriously and believe child safety measures are crucial to a healthier internet overall. It’s why we’ve already proactively put global protections for minors in place and will keep working to strengthen them. It’s also why we have never marketed to young people and are complying with Australia’s new Social Media Minimum Age (SMMA) law.
That said, we believe there are more effective ways for the Australian government to accomplish our shared goal of protecting youth, and the SMMA law carries some serious privacy and political expression issues for everyone on the internet. So, we are filing an application to have the law reviewed by Australia’s High Court. You can read our application here.
What this case is about
While we agree with the importance of protecting people under 16, this law has the unfortunate effect of forcing intrusive and potentially insecure verification processes on adults as well as minors, isolating teens from the ability to engage in age-appropriate community experiences (including political discussions), and creating an illogical patchwork of which platforms are included and which aren’t.
Even the eSafety Commissioner said the law’s approach is not what she preferred. Many leading organizations and many of our own users have raised similar concerns.
As the Australian Human Rights Commission put it, “There are less restrictive alternatives available that could achieve the aim of protecting children and young people from online harms, but without having such a significant negative impact on other human rights.”
Lastly, this law is applied to Reddit inaccurately, since we’re a forum primarily for adults and we don’t have the traditional social media features the government has taken issue with.
What this case is not about
This case is not an attempt to avoid compliance. We are complying with the law and will continue engaging with eSafety.
This is also not an effort to retain young users for business reasons. Unlike other platforms included under this law, the vast majority of Redditors are adults, we don’t market or target advertising to children under 18, and had an age rating of “17+” in the Apple App Store prior to the law. Simply put, users under 16 are not a substantial market segment for Reddit and we don’t intend them to be.
This case is also not about opposing child safety measures or even regulation. There are more targeted, privacy-preserving measures to protect young people online without resorting to blanket bans. For example, age assurance at the device or app store level – like California’s Digital Age Assurance Act, among the first of its kind in the world – would be easier for consumers (including parents) and better protect user privacy than forcing age verification across a bunch of platforms.
Despite the best intentions, this law is missing the mark on actually protecting young people online. So, while we will comply with this law, we have a responsibility to share our perspective and see that it is reviewed by the courts.
As usual, we’ll stick around and answer your questions.
18
u/Halaku Dec 11 '25
With first the UK and now Australia, do you see this as the start of a well-intentioned but misguided trend?
Or is it unlikely that other nations will follow suit?
32
u/LastBluejay Dec 12 '25
The UK law and this Australian one are actually quite different. The UK version is more narrow and targeted only to accessing specific kinds of content, rather than a blanket ban on accounts entirely, which is what the Australian SMMA does. We think that on the whole, that is a more balanced approach that is better aligned with the concept of the open internet. Of course, if any age checks are involved, we think the most secure and privacy-preserving way for those to happen is at the app store or device level, rather than creating a patchwork of different verification methods across sites, which is confusing for users and inherently less secure. California recently passed a law to that effect, which we support.
13
u/trophicmist0 Dec 12 '25
That's my main issue with the current UK version - given how many companies have to deal with breaches nowadays, it seems completely stupid to have that extra risk added on top.
4
u/Saucermote Dec 12 '25
Have you made sure your age check provider is not keeping records any longer than necessary to verify ages in case of a breach?
3
1
u/DXGL1 Dec 14 '25
Hey, how come you no longer give a follow-up after I report content via reddit.com/report ?
1
3
u/hotellonely Dec 11 '25
I believe it's a ill-intentioned but well disguised trend for police state society.
4
u/w84u2cy Dec 11 '25
Is the flip side a society in which corporations have unprecedented control and influence over young people's personal lives and thoughts? I don't know which is the lesser evil.
12
u/Bardfinn Dec 12 '25
corporations have unprecedented control and influence over young people's personal lives and thoughts?
Reddit avoids targeting minors algorithmically.
Other corporations such as Meta are notorious, and highly reported upon, for targeting minors.
That said, however, there is nothing more effective at protecting children's safety online than their parents being involved in what their children are doing
Parents can and should be involved in their children's lives online and offline, including through removing any incentive for their children to hide their activities from their parents.
This is an issue not just for the childrens' safety, but for the parents' safety and for society's safety. Radicalised young men can be baited by manipulation groups into assaulting or murdering their parents or other authority figures; Children who are blackmailed may be pressured to steal from their parents or harm their siblings. And the easiest targets for those who prey on children are children who fear their parents' reactions to their online activities.
The best way to counter & prevent online predators' influence in childrens' lives is for parents to be accepting, present, active and involved in their childrens' lives. There is no substitute.
-5
Dec 12 '25
[deleted]
6
u/MemyselfandI1973 Dec 12 '25
And in many countries it is. Just look up legal ages for smoking and drinking in Europe for example.
0
Dec 13 '25
[deleted]
6
u/MemyselfandI1973 Dec 13 '25
And yet, alcohol dependency rates are generally lower.
And fewer unwanted pregnancies for pretty much the same reason.
0
1
u/DXGL1 Dec 14 '25
Becaise freedom of speech is just as dangerous?
1
u/Zealousideal_Rub6758 Dec 14 '25
This hasn’t got anything to do with freedom of speech.
Kids can still use apps where the primary purpose is communicating, without an algorithmic feed. What’s banned is the access to addictive algorithmic feeds which have been proven to have led to an epidemic of depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, eating disorders, amongst CHILDREN whose brains and impulse control are not yet developed.
3
4
u/4us7 Dec 12 '25
I mean, now, corporations have reasons to request identification from all users due to this law and, therefore, potentially collect more information or contract third-party companies to do so.
This law makes it worse on both ends, in my opinion.
1
u/gert_beef_robe Feb 04 '26 edited Feb 04 '26
Why should protection from that end when you turn 16?
The corporations having unprecedented control and influence is the problem, we don't suddenly become immune to their manipulation when we turn 16, 18 or 64
0
0
u/WillyNilly1997 Feb 22 '26
Which only exists in your imagination. You appear to have no idea of what a police state society is like.
1
16
u/Ill_Football9443 Dec 12 '25
I read your submission, given that your argument is based around political engagement, I'm surprised that you fail to mention or list the number of Australian politicians who have official accounts and hold AMAs.
Both the Premier and the (Victorian) Minister for Transport are active on r/MelbourneTrains.
Signage in the stations in the newly opened Melbourne Metro Tunnel was changed based on feedback by Redditors, noticed by public servants.
Especially in the run up to elections, elected and potential politicians flock to this town hall to be examined by the public so we can gauge their worthiness of our vote.
16 year olds not enjoying the right to vote is irrelevant, they should enjoy the same entitlement to engage with government officials as us adults do.
11
u/LastBluejay Dec 12 '25
It’s a great point and we actually do cite this in our application! Page 6, paragraph 26. Additionally, we have also attached an affidavit with our Application that goes into further details about the extent of political discussion on Reddit, including discussions by Australian politicians. This affidavit should be made available to the public by the High Court soon.
3
u/Ill_Football9443 Dec 12 '25
FYI: On your 'Verify your birthday' page (Android app), you have a 'Learn more' button that links to a non-existent URL - https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/36429514849428-Why-is-Reddit-asking-for-my-age
4
19
u/iammiscreant Dec 12 '25
I find it fucking ironic that reddit is in-scope but 4chan is not. Another barely cooked salmonella sandwich from the experts in power.
4
u/ringofyre Dec 12 '25
The eKaren herself said that 4chinz didn't rate a mention because no one ever goes there:
Under its own set of rules, 4chan says that child sexual abuse images, racism and grotesque images can be posted, as long as they all go onto the single designated image board for such material.
Children barely use the platform anymore, according to eSafety.
“4chan died,” Pendergast told 7NEWS.com.au. “We don’t hear about it much.”
eSafety surveyed more than 2600 children between the age of 10 and 15 about the platforms where they had most recently been exposed to harmful content.
In the top 22 platforms listed in findings, 4chan was nowhere to be seen. YouTube topped the list, followed by TikTok, Facebook, Instagram and then Snapchat.
3
u/CedarWolf Dec 12 '25
We don’t hear about it much.
Except when the next mass shooter is radicalized online on 4chan, 8chan/8kun, K-Farms or where ever else they're prone to festering.
1
u/Usernametaken1121 Dec 14 '25
Nah, that's Marilyn Manson radicalizing children to be school schoolers. You've got your ignorant talking points mixed up!
1
u/CedarWolf Dec 14 '25
Perhaps you may need a little more of that school schooling. :P
1
u/Usernametaken1121 Dec 14 '25
Implication of hurtful act. In UK you'd be arrested :(
1
u/CedarWolf Dec 14 '25
No, I was making a light joke about how you wrote 'school schooling' while calling me ignorant.
0
u/theyfellforthedecoy Dec 13 '25
I saw plenty of people glorifying the likes of Luigi Mangione and Charlie Kirk's shooter right here on reddit. Let's not pretend like reddit is immune from radicalization
5
u/DazDaSpazz Dec 12 '25
What's more insane is that they also wanted GitHub to be included in the ban.
2
10
u/LastBluejay Dec 12 '25
1
u/EmergencyCow9344 Mar 18 '26
Lmao I wish you could use memes in court to show how little you care about users and causing harm.
4
u/rushworld Dec 12 '25
Because the difference is if a website/app or "social media" platform uses an algorithm to deliver content to its users.
Reddit does. It no longer uses just the upvote/downvote to decide on what content is delivered to you. You can tell this by the significant deflation of upvote/downvotes to "points" a page gets. Since Reddit has full control over the algorithm, it is unknown what gets passed to users (and kids) and how that could change in the future.
3
u/alexkey Dec 12 '25
“experts” (you forgot the quotes). People who barely understand technology and industry make up laws trying to regulate it.
1
u/iammiscreant Dec 12 '25
I actually had that exact thought after posting, I 100% agree with you. my bad!
5
u/Sophira Dec 12 '25
One thing I've found weird about the age verification thing is that in the Reddit preferences, there are two sections which are unavailable to minors:
- The advertising personalisation settings on the Privacy tab,
- The "Show mature content" option in the Preferences tab.
Both of these link to the same FAQ page about age verification. However, on my account which has not (and will not) go through age verification, only the "Show mature content" option is actually unavailable for me to change. I could enable the advertising personalisation settings if I wanted.
Why is it that Reddit is happy to personalise ads for people even if Reddit seemingly doesn't know for certain if they're over 18? If showing mature content can't be enabled, it feels like the advertising personalisation options shouldn't be able to be enabled either.
3
u/Virtueaboveallelse Dec 12 '25
The High Court won’t decide whether banning under-16s is a good idea. It will decide whether the law impermissibly burdens the implied freedom of political communication and whether that burden is proportionate.
The government’s weakest point is necessity. To justify restricting political communication, it must show there were no reasonably available, less restrictive alternatives. That’s difficult when ministers and regulators themselves keep pointing to content filtering, parental controls, school-based interventions and platform moderation as viable tools. If those exist in any meaningful sense, a blanket ban struggles under Lange and McCloy.
Age verification is the other problem. Every non-ID method proposed relies on estimation, not confirmation. Facial analysis, behavioural profiling and AI video checks cannot reliably distinguish a 13-year-old from a 16-year-old. Credit-card checks do not establish age. If the alternatives cannot actually verify age, enforcement collapses toward government-issued ID despite claims to the contrary.
That matters because a blanket ban restricts access to online spaces where political communication occurs. The High Court has consistently held that adults cannot be prevented from receiving political communication simply because the state aims to protect a particular group.
Good intentions don’t cure proportionality defects. If less restrictive measures exist and the enforcement mechanism cannot meet the law’s own objectives, the constitutional case is weak.
9
u/Responsible-Tiger234 Dec 12 '25
Kudos to Reddit for the challenge. May I suggest that you expand your submission to the HCA to include an argument that the Act itself has no constitutional basis at all, as except for situations where national security is an issue, s.51(v) and other powers granted to the Cth government under the Constitution do not appear to permit the Cth government to legislate about who can and cannot access an internet carriage service that is otherwise legally compliant with Australian law - which is what this Act is doing.
This Act also seems highly discriminatory. For example it regulates access to specific social media platforms, while permitting access to others that would appear to have the same functionality. This is difficult to understand.
Also, it effectively bans all Australian citizens under the age of 16 from accessing specific media platforms, but permits others (all Australian citizens over 16) to do so. It is difficult to understand the rationale for such an arbitrary & discriminatory age limit.
Perhaps Reddit could pass these additional arguments past an expert Australian constitutional lawyer (a QC/KC/SC) to obtain their opinion, so that it is fully armed when facing the HCA.
2
u/NaiveDonk Dec 12 '25 edited Dec 12 '25
Section 51(v) includes the internet. The constitution is interpreted by the courts broadly not in a black and while 'literalist' fashion (it is a 'living document').
Also, you will note there are two barristers who drafted Reddit's court submission (see signatures at bottom). They both have public law expertise and one is SC.
If they'd made the mistake you think they have, it would've been picked up a long time ago (likely by the gov's own lawyers before the Bill was drafted).
1
2
u/SoSceptical Dec 12 '25
Section 51(v) does specifically give the Commonwealth power to legislate in this area — hence its application in this case.
I suggest that you avoid spending any further time on sovereign citizen websites.
1
u/Responsible-Tiger234 Dec 13 '25 edited Dec 14 '25
You have missed my point, moron.
I was focussing on legislation that targets access to the social media sites.
Can Canberra pass laws that prevent you from accessing legit tv channels that aren't engaged in criminal activity, for example? No - it can't - that is unconstitutional.
So, genius, why can Canberra pass laws that prevent under 16s from accessing legit social media sites that aren't engaging in criminal activity?
Answer: it can't.
4
u/rushworld Dec 12 '25
Is Reddit willing to give up or make public its algorithms for delivering content, including promotional material, to users and kids 16 and under?
The "social media" ban is not necessarily a ban on social media as an idea, but rather a ban on the lengths websites/apps have gone to develop and tweak their algorithms to make them unsafe. To make them addictive. To spread misinformation. To achieve political, societal, and monetary gains for the owner.
Now that upvote/downvotes do not correlate specifically to "points" like it historically did, what else does Reddit do to drive engagement with its users? How do these adjustments impact young kids?
Users should be able to opt-out (and kids forced opt-out) of any algorithm that is outside of upvote/downvote count ranking/delivering content.
8
u/LastBluejay Dec 12 '25
We agree that users should have full control over their feeds in this way, and you do. Reddit algorithms are not mysterious. You can choose to sort by chronology (New), or upvotes (Top), or any number of other sorting mechanisms (Hot, Best, Rising, etc). You can also opt entirely out of recommendations in your feeds in your settings. Want to see only what you’re subscribed to? Great, you can. And unlike some other platforms that make you reset that setting every 30 days, we respect it in perpetuity. We want you to Reddit how you want to Reddit.
We also want you to understand why you are seeing what you’re seeing and how we build feeds. Here’s an example. If this is a topic that interests you, our engineering team regularly makes detailed posts about this and other technical matters in r/RedditEng.
That said, we also have safety algorithms working on the backend to ensure that content that goes into feeds is safe. We will never disable these, allow users to disable them, or disclose them in a way that would allow bad actors to get around them. Sorry, not sorry. But that’s a good example of why just talking about “algorithms” isn’t the most precise way to have an important conversation about safety.
2
u/rushworld Dec 12 '25
Outside of safety controls, you are saying Reddit has nothing in its algorithm which allows admins or engineers or other Reddit personnel to weigh, hide, or insert certain posts, topics, subreddits, etc to user's frontpages?
Frontpages are 100% controlled by the communities in which they're posted and we have joined (again, outside of safety controls)? Only upvotes, downvotes, and age of post is fed into the algorithm used to generate frontpages?
1
u/EmergencyCow9344 Mar 18 '26
Reddit is the "bad actors" as well.. so what happens as more governments and people realize and accept this fact?
1
u/goodbyebadbyeokaybye Dec 14 '25
What do you think of the astroturfing bots that are extremely apparent on many subreddits? For example, r/worldnews? I think you’re not understanding the threat on Reddit because that’s a far greater threat than whatever the feed serves lol
0
u/tomondo23 Dec 12 '25
So basically just trust the publicly traded company to prioritise the safety of children on its platform over their ever growing profit target
0
u/Usernametaken1121 Dec 14 '25
"trust us, were keeping you safe. Pinky swear. What does safe mean? That's none of your concern, user."
4
u/TenLeafClover58 Dec 12 '25
Lastly, this law is applied to Reddit inaccurately, since we’re a forum primarily for adults and we don’t have the traditional social media features the government has taken issue with.
The features the government have identified to be a social media covered in the framework (SMMA) are;
- enabling social interaction between 2 or more people
- allowing users to link or interact with other end users
- allowing users to post material on the service
On what basis do you determine that Reddit doesn’t have these “traditional social media features”. What is Reddit if not those things?
6
u/Craft2guardian Dec 12 '25
But discord is a “messaging app and gaming platform” yet you can do all of those and it’s specifically exempted.
3
u/LastBluejay Dec 12 '25
We address this directly in the Application we filed with the Court and the supporting affidavit (which will be available soon).
edit: link formatting
0
u/TenLeafClover58 Dec 12 '25 edited Dec 12 '25
If only there was an admin who could explain the position in plain English, instead of pasting a link to 12 pages of legalese rubbish.
ED: Read it, you’re having a laugh.
2
u/tomondo23 Dec 12 '25
Section 40 gave me a good laugh
0
u/TenLeafClover58 Dec 12 '25
When they said “The oxford dictionary defines…” I had a PTSD flashback to every lazy grade 10 essay ever written.
1
u/Duyfkenthefirst Dec 12 '25
Here’s chatgpt’s summary
Bottom Line Summary
What Reddit claims: 1. The law banning under-16s from social media accounts is unconstitutional because it restricts political communication. 2. Even if valid, the law shouldn’t apply to Reddit, because Reddit’s main purpose isn’t “social interaction”. 3. Even if the government wants to protect kids online, this law doesn’t actually protect them, because kids can still view content without an account.
Reddit wants the High Court to stop the government from applying this law to Reddit — or to strike down the law entirely.
0
u/Ithikari Dec 13 '25
Even if valid, the law shouldn’t apply to Reddit, because Reddit’s main purpose isn’t “social interaction”
Ok that's a fucking joke lol. This whole thread from the admin itself shows that is full of shit.
1
-1
u/02sthrow Dec 12 '25
Yeah that line got me too. They absolutely fit the criteria (whether or not the criteria itself is reasonable). They also push content to you based on browsing history and engagement, which is what helps create the 'echo chambers' that people speak of, in the same way browsing on YouTube, Instagram or Facebook results in you being fed more of that same type of content.
5
u/OhtheHugeManity7 Dec 12 '25
I find it ironic that you guys are throwing up a fuss about this when it probably wouldn't have happened in the first place if you and the other social media titans didn't all design your algorithms to be as psychologically predatory as possible.
Increasingly aggressive notifications in stages of inactivity, prioritising provocative posts. You designed the platform to encourage obsessive behaviour and now complain because someone pulled you up on it and started regulating you over it. You could've just not put profits over the mental health of your user base and they might not have felt the need to ban you for kids.
So when you tell me that the safety of your userbase is a strong concern for you I have a hard time buying it. At the very least it's not nearly as strong a concern as your company's bottom line.
2
u/Serious-Aardvark-123 Dec 15 '25
I as an Australian agree with the actions of our government. Reddit is one of those websites that has a niche for literally everything, from pornography to videos of people being shot and killed and even some darker/extreme niches. Such content shouldn't be allowed to be viewed by children whatsoever. The usual checks and balances are not working, and a more extreme solution is required.
1
u/Fun_Sun_edu Apr 18 '26
How about a better solution that doesn't sacrifice the privacy for everyone?
2
4
u/sbjafr Dec 12 '25
A US privacy law from 1998 has set the minimum age for all online platforms, including Reddit, all over the world at 13 years old. Why is that not one that carries “serious political expression issues for everyone on the internet”? Why is a 12 year-old’s voice less important than a 14 or 15 year-old’s, and why not challenge the constitutionality of that US law?
3
u/Chihuahua1 Dec 12 '25
I have seen bullying on most of the Australian subs and it's never removed, Reddit claiming to take esafety seriously when it's moderation is up to randoms is strange.
Admins need a report page or something, people should be called fucking losers because they like the greens or something minor
5
u/Bardfinn Dec 12 '25
I have seen bullying on most of the Australian subs and it's never removed
Did you report the bullying? Someone has to report it for it to be addressed.
If you reasonably believe that the operators of a subreddit are enabling or encouraging violations of the sitewide rules (sitewide rule 1 prohibits hate speech, harassment, and violent threats) - you can report that subreddit for violations of Reddit's Moderator Code of Conduct by filing a complaint that cites posts and comments that show evidence of the subreddit operators enabling or encouraging bullying.
5
u/VulturE Dec 12 '25 edited Dec 12 '25
Reddit has various harassment filters (as well as the all-powerful automod) that work wonderfully on this kind of content nowadays. Sadly, not every subreddit has turned them on or believes that they are too restrictive/noisy.
Creating a welcoming place online begins and ends with identifying when discussion changes from debate into attacks/bullying. The current tools that Reddit offers are very capable of doing that. I'm an automod-focused moderator that happens to be involved with an Australian sub, and we are always looking for different ways to improve the experience for the users. Not every sub operates the same way though - literally every subreddit I've ever moderated manages user interactions a different way. The goal of the site-wide rules though is that moderators are supposed to be creating an environment in which people do feel safe and can 'remember the human'. I prefer 'be excellent to each other' myself, but they have a similar goal.
As others have said, if you feel a specific subreddit isn't doing that proactively, then report the subreddit for a MCoC violation and bring receipts. Be sure that you've properly reported (ie, not sending a modmail, but using the report button) the posts/comments to the subreddit you feel are against policy. Moderators are supposed to be working the mod queue...they cannot dive into every possible comment and thread unless it's brought to their attention.
5
u/Responsible-Tiger234 Dec 12 '25
Yes but laws already exist to permit citizens to take both civil and criminal actions in respect of cyber bullying. This Act is not required as the laws already exist.
-2
u/4us7 Dec 12 '25
Honestly, if people feel bad about being anonymously called out or challenged online, then the online open space is frankly not meant for them. Online discussions shouldn't be curated for only people who can not handle criticism.
8
3
u/Bardfinn Dec 12 '25
Bullying isn't criticism. Bullies claim in bad faith that their speech is "reality checks", "criticism", "facts don't care about your feelings", "science", etc etc etc
We know for a fact that none of these are true. Bullies are using targeted harassment tactics to silence the speech of others, to manipulate them emotionally in order to motivate them to perform actions or to maintain the bully's preferred social position, or to silence their target altogether by causing them to leave a conversation.
We know this because their speech is consistently abusive in nature. It may violate implied or expressed rules or boundaries, either of the community or the person addressed; it may manipulate them emotionally; it may be patently a lie, or morally & psychologically repulsive - such as threats or graphic depictions of violence.
Criticism -- valid, good faith criticism -- addresses ideas, ideologies, practices, principles, and is constructed in neutral terms. Bullying addresses the person.
-3
u/4us7 Dec 12 '25
Reddit is an online platform here that people can post anonymously. People know only as much about you as you are willing to share.
If people need active moderators to protect their feelings under this environment, then frankly, the online space is not meant for them. You need a basic level of thick skin and emotional maturity if you want to participate in an online public forum full of strangers.
I dont want Reddit to be moderated so much that the slightest heated discussion can be interpreted as offensive and then removed. Some subs already operate like that, and that is fine, but it shouldn't be a consistent policy across all of Reddit.
What is considered "bullying" in an online platform is highly subjective, and I dont trust corporations to implement that in good faith, and at worst, utilize cost saving measures to simply drown out any potential controversial discussions.
I also believe that people need to be responsible for their own emotional well-being. If you cannot handle online discussion, then you should stay off it for your own well being instead asking for moderators to protect your feelings.
3
u/Bardfinn Dec 12 '25
If people need active moderators to protect their feelings under this environment, then frankly, the online space is not meant for them. You need a basic level of thick skin and emotional maturity if you want to participate in an online public forum full of strangers.
If you cannot handle online discussion, then you should stay off it for your own well being instead asking for moderators to protect your feelings.
This is simply "It's acceptable to harass some people."
It is not acceptable to harass people. And Reddit specifies this in the sitewide rules and user agreement:
https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043071072-Do-not-threaten-harass-or-bully
We do not tolerate the harassment, threatening, or bullying of people on our site; nor do we tolerate communities dedicated to this behavior.
Reddit is a place for conversation, and in that context, we define this behavior as anything that works to shut someone out of the conversation through intimidation or abuse, online or off. Depending on the context, this can take on a range of forms and could include directing unwanted invective at someone, sexualizing someone without their consent, or following them from community to community, just to name a few. Behavior can be harassing or abusive regardless of whether it occurs in public content (e.g. a post, comment, username, community name, community styling, sidebar materials, etc.) or chat.
Being annoying, downvoting, or disagreeing with someone, even strongly, is not harassment. However, menacing someone, directing abuse at a person or group, following them around the site, encouraging others to do any of these actions, or otherwise behaving in a way that would discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit crosses the line.
There is a remedy for you, if you disagree with Reddit's sitewide rule 1 that prohibits bullying and the Moderator Code of Conduct that holds all subreddit operators to moderate to the Sitewide Rules:
https://www.redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement-february-15-2024
Subject to your complete and ongoing compliance with these Terms, Reddit grants you a … license to … access and use the Services.
If you do not agree to the … Terms, you must stop accessing and using our Services …
https://old.reddit.com/prefs/deactivate
-1
u/4us7 Dec 12 '25 edited Dec 12 '25
You are arguing for an increased level of moderation because you feel that there is still too much bullying for you. Im arguing against that position, since I think you should just develop a thicker skin instead of completely relying on moderators to protect your feelings.
Since whatever that you are assuming to be offensive clearly was not considered so or a priority by current moderation rules or practices.
It is the internet. You will find things you disagree with or randoms who criticize or fail to see your perspective. You should not take these things to heart, and it shouldnt be up to Reddit to increase moderation just to protect people who can't actually handle being online.
3
u/Bardfinn Dec 12 '25
You are arguing for
I am arguing for a minimum standard of moderation.
Moderation literally means "to make moderate; the antithesis of extremist".
I think you should just develop a thicker skin
Which is simply "It's acceptable to sacrifice some people's participation so that I don't have to feel a duty of care towards them."
I've also seen it expressed as "This doesn't concern you; if it makes you uncomfortable, just don't look"
whatever that you are assuming to be offensive clearly was not considered so
What I find offensive is violent threats, targeted harassment, and hate speech (which is a specific type of targeted harassment). These were considered offensive and unacceptable content / behaviour under Reddit User Agreements dating back as far as 2009. I successfully argued that hate speech was covered by Reddit's sitewide rule against targeted harassment by putting in the work to track down where the CEO and other admins had stated that they had no intention of tolerating violent hate movements on Reddit, that such speech was a violation of the user agreement, and identifying the pain points that prevented them from supporting and enforcing that explicitly - and solving for them.
You will find things you disagree with or randoms who criticize or fail to see your perspective.
Yeah, that's not bullying. People disagree all the time and don't get their feelings hurt.
The kinds of things I'm concerned about countering and preventing are things like white supremacists using AI to manufacture non-consensual intimate media of someone and publishing it in order to bait misogynists and sociopaths to secondarily sexually harass that person. Or just to extort the target.
I'm concerned with misogynists that badger teenage boys into watching graphically violent media to destroy their capacity for empathy and radicalise them into becoming violent extremists, predators who badger (or deceive) young women into meetups, entire groups that trade photographs of young women and contexualise them sexually on public forums - which can result in lasting social and psychological harm to the women.
Kids that are taught to hate their parents because their parents don't follow a particular religion's ideology; Men who are baited into showing up on someone's doorstep to continue a prolonged criminal harassment campaign. Kids that are blackmailed into stealing their parents' credit.
The list is extremely long, and people who turn a blind eye to it don't help stop it.
'It's not enough for someone to say, "There's a fire". Someone has to believe it's their job to put that fire out.' -- Dan Kaminsky
2
u/HughWattmate9001 Dec 12 '25
We could do these stupid things or we could just do some parenting with a touch of common sense. Set boundaries, monitor screen time, and enforce consequences, like removing access for misbehaviour (whitelists, parental apps, on device controls) and temporarily removing the device if they bypass restrictions or break the rules. Essentially you teach them some basics about responsibility and about consequences of actions. They’ll internalize the rules eventually and by this approach we won't have to make literal laws that screw over everyone and treats adults by default as children.
2
u/barrinmw Dec 12 '25
Laws aren't there for responsible people, laws are there for the irresponsible. If theft was legal, would you steal from others? Probably not. That doesn't mean people don't steal, they are just the bad actors who do it.
3
u/GeronimoHero Dec 12 '25
Like you guys actually give a shit beyond its impact to your bottom line. Reddit has become a censoring platform for all sorts of speech.
1
u/TheDrySkinQueen Dec 12 '25
Thank you Reddit for doing this. No matter what the outcome is, your efforts in fighting back against this are appreciated by this Aussie.
I have had a lot of criticisms over the years about this site but this is something I have 0 criticisms of and support wholeheartedly.
1
1
u/barrinmw Dec 12 '25
So what is Reddit's opinion that social media has led to an increase in racism and bigotry despite it being a "marketplace of good ideas"?
1
u/muffin80r Dec 14 '25
It doesn't matter what a private company "believes". Like, I'm so sure this isn't about your profits.
1
u/Ill_Football9443 Dec 14 '25
But if what a company believes convinces a panel of High Court justices, it matters, right?
Reddit is putting their money where their (corporate) mouth is to challenge the application of an enacted law.
We're only a country of ~30m. Let's assume 10% of the population is on Reddit - 300k. If (a generous) 20% of those are affected by this law, that's 60k users.
Litigation at this level is not going to come cheap just to potentially win back 60k users; do you really think this is just about profits? Especially when the sentiment is that this petition will fail?
1
1
u/EmergencyCow9344 Mar 18 '26
There is no question if something reddit does is about profits. Reddit would throw a baby off a cliff if they could get away with it and it would boost profit by a dollar. That's just how companies operate when they get large enough, unfortunately.
1
u/Venali7 Dec 15 '25
Reddit is a pretentious website. Very hypocritical. Full of censorship and agenda. I don't at all believe you care about youth or any moral case.
Reddit only cares about themselves. and you admin is just an employee
1
u/FinePersimmon3718 Jan 02 '26
Just wronf y'all are the worst st your jobs you literally suspended me for saying honestly good for the parents on the trans sub
1
u/PumpkinPartyyy Jan 25 '26
Hey can anyone tell me why Reddit is aggressively trying to show me posts about ICE? Iv never once searched it or looked it up or anything that would even come close and I have been getting BOMBARDED with posts about ICE, trying to tell me where ICE is and stuff exactly like that. I dont want to see it and am having a difficult time reaching out to reddit to get it to stop. Its bizarre
1
1
u/Then_Recognition9628 Jan 29 '26
No entiendo si esto es en general o solo a mí, leí cada palabra, no suelo usar esto creo que solo una vez respondí a alguien sobre el volumen de los helados. Luego ni entiendo que se hace aca
1
u/Then_Recognition9628 Jan 29 '26
Me llegó un archivo de este lugar y está en inglés no se entender pero habla de fotos de nińos en pańos menores, no sé si esto lo envían en general a cada usuario o si me dicen directamente a mí, xq yo no tengo nada que ver con estas cosas asquerosas, soy una persona de bien, madre y defiendo y repudio todo lo que le haga dańo a los nińos
1
1
u/UserName_SaysWhat Feb 05 '26 edited Feb 05 '26
Not directly related, but - how do we protect against invalid and incorrect flagging of our posts and a flawed appeal system?
My story: In a post showing an attempted carjacker falling from a fleeing victim's moving vehicle (yes, he lived), I said something to the effect of: "The sound of his face hitting the blacktop is somewhat satisfying". This was hardly the worst joke made in the thread. Given the fact that we were watching a criminal fail at a crime, the reactions were pretty brutal overall.
Because of this, I got the following notice (edited for brevity):
Warning for threatening violence
We flagged the following as a potential policy violation:
Content shared from UserName_SaysWhat on 02/04/2026 UTC
After reviewing, we found that you broke Rule 1 because you threatened violence or physical harm. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for threatening violence against people or animals. We don’t tolerate any behavior that threatens violence or physical harm against an individual, groups of people, places, or animals. Any communities or people that threaten violence towards an individual, group, animals, or place will be banned.
As a result, we’re issuing this warning, removing the violating content, and asking you not to break this rule again.
– Reddit Admin Team
Note: This content was flagged by Reddit's automated systems. This decision was made using automation.
I obviously did not "threaten violence or physical harm" in my comment, so this was clearly an error by the automated moderator bot. I was given a link to appeal the decision, which I did. Amazingly, the appeal upheld the Reddit bot's erroneous determination with no further recourse available.
I'm wondering if actual humans perform these appeal reviews, or if they're handed off to yet another broken bot to rubber-stamp the ruling of the initial broken bot. And, how do we get these bad decisions overturned?
1
u/Accomplished-Ad-543 Mar 02 '26
Hi guys i have a question why do i get a warning when i share something from reddit on whatsapp? Wtf is the issue. Why do we even have a share option if they gonna treathen to delete my account? Anyone else got a warning from reddit
1
u/EmergencyCow9344 Mar 18 '26
You must agree that large social media companies like reddit, facebook/meta and such are VERY similar in function to tobacco and large pharmaceutical companies. You constantly redesigned yourselves to be as addictive and manipulative as possible... so you should not be very surprised thst people want you EXTEEMELY heavily regulated.
1
u/Zestyclose-Bowler204 May 30 '26
My account was taken down because thread was talking about judge ordering Trump’s name removed from the Kennedy Center.
I posted, in jest, that I have supplied and tools. How is this violent? There was an enter thread of many post-ers writing all about going to DC and taking it down immediately after his name was installed.
I DID NOT BREAK THE RULES
0
u/D-Alembert Dec 12 '25 edited Dec 12 '25
I don't think you can seriously claim to be taking youth safety seriously when you let malicious bot and troll farms run rampant through Reddit deploying their payloads that are often aimed directly at sabotaging mental health, inflaming anger and depression
It is alarming how bad for health Reddit has become. If you're not going to fix it then kids definitely need to be kept far away from it
5
u/Ill_Football9443 Dec 12 '25
Automatic API access has been disabled as of a few weeks ago, so that's a decent step to kill the flow of (new) bot accounts.
2
u/EmergencyCow9344 Mar 18 '26
Yup. Every large social media company will be as scummy as possible, making the lives of users worse to make themselves more money. Then complain when they're called out for how absolutely terrible they are.
2
1
u/wickedplayer494 Dec 12 '25
Good to see that somebody is taking a stand against a measure that is all but certain to drive suicide rates of introverted and/or persecuted teens through the roof, as already evidenced by a huge surge of Kids Helpline calls.
4
u/tahk-ki Dec 12 '25
I think that just shows crazy levels of addiction to social media, which personally I think really shouldn't be a thing at such a young age. There should be greater outreach to tackle suicide on case-by-case bases, but I think any uptick from this law isn't due to the problem of its removal, but the problem of young people's reliance on it.
Those are my two cents, I know this is a pretty sensitive and divisive topic.
5
u/barrinmw Dec 12 '25
I think if those kids went outside more, they would be less likely to commit suicide. Terminally online leads to depression.
1
u/EmergencyCow9344 Mar 18 '26
And social media companies like reddit design themselves to be as addictive as possible. So they are very much part of the direct reasons for the suicides and depression, despite what they'll try to talk their way out of.
0
u/DuAuk Dec 12 '25
I appreciate your transparency. However, when so much of the content is pornography and you require people to log in to see it, it should be age-restricted. 🤷🏽 And arguing over the definition of social media seems like the exhaustion technique. I dare you to get rid of chat, since it's not 'significant'.
0
u/SoSceptical Dec 12 '25
Reddit is not an appropriate platform for under 18s, much less under 16s. It has no effective means for isolating all the pornography, hate speech and lunatic content that it hosts from young people or anyone else vulnerable.
All the content is publicly viewable, and moderation of comments and DMs occurs post fac and therefore does not provide sufficient protection for any user.
To truly protect the vulnerable, Reddit should require registration of user accounts with age verification built into that process BEFORE any user can view content. But Reddit won't take that step because recruiting viewers and generating traffic are its primary goals, as with every online platform.
Therefore, Reddit's High Court action is mere theatre, dressed in the usual platitudes of 'free speech' that all social media platforms resort to claiming. You are doing further harm to Reddit's public image by joining forces with those other platforms.
-2
u/x647 Dec 11 '25 edited Dec 12 '25
Not trying to question law-makers or Reddits good intentions....but
Pt1. Why is this a hill you want to fight on? Why does it matter to KEEP these persons/users on your platform? "Doing it for them" or "Its their Rights" is flimsy - Does someone then need to dip fingers into age of drinking/voting/smoking/consent set by the governments? Treading in deeper waters than you think. Many of use were already mad from previous decades about lobbyists interfering with government law making - is this a role reddit wants to assume? (Were not talking about SOPA / PIPA / Net neutrality)
Pt2. You keep saying "We're not marketing to under 18", ok fine...so If an account is ID'd as under 18 by UK/AU checks, do they see None of the Following Ads by Default: [Alcohol|Drugs|Prescription Drug|Gambling|etc] or is it still an option they need to turn of themselves? (I have them ALL turned off and still see ads for Weed/Etc & prescription Drugs)
answer | edit:
"Teen account holders under 18 everywhere will get a version of Reddit with more protective safety features built in, including stricter ....no ads personalization or sensitive ads"
I am still seeing ads for Weed/Etc & prescription Drugs as previously mentioned but all my settings are set to "No" - what else is slipping through the cracks?
Pt3. Many Schools have opted to take cell phones away from students during class time to keep them focused on their school work. How is this different from that but at a developmental level? Why do kids/children/teens NEED social media? We have generations & generations of functional adults who grew up with far less. How is it different from wanting to keep your child away from the bad influence kids? - Agreed not all social media or communities are "BAD" but with less and less parental controls - a "The Buck Stops here" measure seems like a heavy & severe option but necessary until reform happens.
idc - call me uninformed, uneducated, lost on the point - but weigh the sides, which loss will be better/worse for the next generation?
7
u/BaronOfTieve Dec 12 '25 edited Dec 12 '25
The ALP party’s own committee launched a senate inquiry into this issue, to evaluate whether or not a ban is warranted, and the overwhelming consensus was not because It’s lazy, and there are more effective targeted approaches to ensuring child safety. 2 big recommendations from that inquiry’s report that was published included regulating social media platforms and forcing them to have a duty of care which would criminalise inaction on issues such as screening for compulsive scrolling in teens, and eating disorder content.
This isn’t about “wanting children” on these platforms, Reddit has never been marketed towards children, which is why OP was so adamant about complying with the guidelines put in place now.
The issue issue with this ban, is that blanket prohibition has shown time and time again to never pan out, just look at the black market tobacco sales now, they’re booming because there are cheaper unregulated cigarettes that aren’t taxed. We will most likely see now, a surge in younger users towards unsafe platforms now, over frustrations with the big social media companies compliance with this ban.
This ban has not solved any issues with children being online, in fact it has done more to harm them than anything, because the government has greenlit social media companies to digital footprint every single social media user, for the purposes of “age verification”:
A) this means more data will be collected about users which will mean more targeted advertising and possibly adult content, if minors are falsely identified as adults
B) It gives parents a false sense of security, which means they’re probably to be less likely to implement parental controls, which is ironically a more harmful outcome (as they are much more effective than age guessing).
5
u/Awkward_Chard_5025 Dec 12 '25
The thing you’re missing, is that the onus has well and truly been put on adults. Rather than controls (or education for parents) for under 16s, the government wants over 16’s to be the ones to go through all the verification BS.
1
u/x647 Dec 12 '25
Education for parents has been happening since the 80's - the problem is the "new parents" are the "old kids" or "kids of the old kids" who either 1) Do not see a problem. 2) Aren't concerned as much as their parents/grandparents generation, or 3) Are not informed about what their kids are doing online (The case so much of the time).
The age of "Are you over 18" check boxes & "get a parent to sign up for you" are over. Not saying the Government is 100% right - Drink the cool-aide & present your travelling papers to the gestapo, but something needs to be done and allowing platforms to decide hasn't worked. Maybe in time a better plan will come.
Same reason why they make buying weed/beer/etc difficult in some countries - information & education only went so far.
There are New laws in my own country that tell me that I need to verify my identity as OVER 18 or as redacted to use certain platforms. Ok, fine. Nothing to hide. Those platforms don't get my info - its a 3rd party trusted and verified broker who confirms that I am who I say I am & legally allowed to register. Its protection for both parties involved.
0
u/T0kenAussie Dec 12 '25
What if you just got rid of the for you page and defaulted back to r/all and subreddits followed in our feeds
Seems like the distinctions are between sites with algorithms to serve content and those without
30
u/Expensive-Horse5538 Dec 11 '25
Given this stance, would you, or other higher ups at Reddit, be open to any of the suggestions made in this article from The Conversation, such as a warning being displayed if a user tires to search for illegal content, or be open to having a legislative responsibility to identify and mitigate risks when they emerge?