Reddit matures, and apologises

The site's general manager has apologised for its conduct during the Boston crisis.

Reddit's general manager , Erik Martin, has apologised for the site's role in creating and spreading misinformation related to the Boston Marathon bombings:

Though started with noble intentions, some of the activity on reddit fueled online witch hunts and dangerous speculation which spiraled into very negative consequences for innocent parties. The reddit staff and the millions of people on reddit around the world deeply regret that this happened. We have apologized privately to the family of missing college student Sunil Tripathi, as have various users and moderators. We want to take this opportunity to apologize publicly for the pain they have had to endure. We hope that this painful event will be channeled into something positive and the increased awareness will lead to Sunil's quick and safe return home. We encourage everyone to join and show your support to the Tripathi family and their search.

The apology is interesting, because it reflects how the rest of the world views Reddit far more than how the community views itself. The decentralised nature of the site means that almost everything that Martin is apologising for is actually the fault of its users, rather than the company which runs Reddit and which Martin is in charge of. The subreddit, r/findbostonbombers, was set up by, and moderated by, normal users; it was Reddit's users who posted personal information, and Reddit's users who led the witch hunts. Viewed from that angle, blaming "Reddit" for this tragedy seems like blaming "Twitter" for naming rape victims; a useful shorthand, but not something we'd expect the head of the company to apologise for.

But the Reddit community is still centralised in a way that Twitter isn't, and that has repercussions. Go to the front page of Reddit without being logged-in, and you'll see the same list of content that everyone else will - and the same that many logged-in users see, as well. Hit up Twitter, on the other hand, and the site doesn't show you a thing until you've told it who you want to follow.

In other words, Twitter is a communications medium through and through, but Reddit – while not a publication in a traditional sense – has elements that we recognise from more conventional news sites. That means the site walks a fine line between trying to enable as much freedom for its users as possible, and having to deal with their mistakes as though someone on a salary made them.

Previously, the administration has been pretty unambiguous in declaring that it is not responsible for its users actions, beyond the site's "park rules":

A small number of cases that we, the admins, reserve for stepping in and taking immediate action against posts, subreddits, and users. We don’t like to have to do it, but we’re also responsible for overseeing the park. Internally, we’ve followed the same set of guidelines for a long time, and none of these should be any surprise to anyone…

  1. Don’t spam
  2. Don’t vote cheat (it doesn’t work, anyway)
  3. Don’t post personal information
  4. Don’t post sexually suggestive content featuring minors
  5. Don’t break the site or interfere with normal usage of the site for anyone else

Those rules are not particularly restrictive, and #4 was only strengthened from the incredibly laissez-faire "no child pornography" last February. Beyond that, the admins have tended to stay silent in the face of what would seem to be noteworthy controversies, like the outing of Violentacrez by Gawker's Adrien Chen and the subsequent widespread banning of Gawker media links from the site.

So it would have been easy for Reddit to respond to this latest problem in much the same way. Blame its users, point out that it has rules to prevent the worst of it and that it is deliberately laissez-faire about the rest, and wash its hands of the whole deal.

That it hasn't is a sign of maturity from the administrative team. But it also means that there's going to be a lot more controversies which they'll be expected to have a view on in future, unless the Reddit community matures at the same time. The chances of that happening soon remain slim.

Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Show Hide image

“Socialism with an iPad” isn't as ludicrous as it sounds

Technology is changing the labour market faster than ever before. John McDonnell argues that it's the state's responsibility to make sure the outcome is fair for everyone. 

The speech shadow chancellor John McDonnell gave at Imperial College earlier today started fine. As my colleague George Eaton points out, McDonnell was valiantly attempting to reframe the economic debate – to show how investment, especially in technology research and infrastructure, could reinvigorate the economy in ways austerity can’t. 

But then he got to the last line. “It’s socialism,” he summed up, “but socialism with an iPad.”

The clunky slogan sailed a thousand The Thick of it references (Bat People and App Britain featured prominently), and its use as a soundbite across the media made McDonnell’s argument look out-of-touch and embarrassing. But in the context of his argument, the line isn’t as nonsensical as it sounds.

Buried in the speech were a number of important arguments about how we let technological advancement come about. It’s lazy to assume that technology is inherently democratic, and will necessarily bring about a fairer society – as things stand, it’s deepy embedded in capitalism. But it's also changing the labour market faster than ever before: automation and robotics will soon mean that most tasks can be carried out  by machine, making those who control those machines vastly more powerful than those who don’t. 

In his speech, McDonnell pointed out that automation will replace low-paid workers first:

Technological advance is forcing the pace of change. Bank of England research suggests that 15 million jobs could be at risk of automation over the next decade or so. And those most at risk from automation are the lowest-paid.

He added that technological advances, and the changes they’ll make to the labour market, must be managed by the state so that workers don't lose out. Technology contributes to the wealth gap, and could well make it worse, unless, as McDonnell says, the government “understands and accepts the strategic role it has to play in our new economy”. This sounds woolly, but it's an important point - Tory policy on issues like tax or the the Transatlantic Trade Partnership (TTIP) has been remarkably hands-off in ceding power to large corporations. 

McDonnell implied that a large and involved state is crucial in a globalised, technological world, to ensure that workers' rights don't fall through the cracks and inequalities don't widen. A large welfare state would help cushion workers in a changing economy -  tax credits, as McDonnell explained earlier, can help make up for low wages in small, start-up businesses. 

Corporations have a poor record of improving working life and helping out those unable to work, or whose skills become redundant. These safeguards will become ever-more important as technology changes the labour market forever. And it’s here, McDonnell argued, that a bit of socialism will be needed. Even if it's carrying an iPad. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.