By accessing this blog, you agree to the following terms:

Nothing you see here is intended or offered as legal advice. The author is not an attorney. These posts have been written for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or professional legal counsel. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between this blog, the author, or the publisher, and you or any other user. Subscribers and readers should not act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

This is not a safe space. I reserve the right to write things you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, over which you may feel uncomfortable or angry, or which you may find offensive. I also don't speak for anyone but myself. These are my observations and opinions. Don't attribute them to any group or person whose name isn't listed as an author of a post on this blog.

Reading past this point is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the above terms.

Letter to Reddit's admins on the subject of #RedditRevolt

Sent using this link from /r/reddit, an archived subreddit for which the admins are moderators.

There are a number of reasons why I have been less and less active on Reddit during the past few years. Ellen Pao personified some of them, and I'm happy to see her go, but Reddit parting ways with her is only a step, not the whole road to recovery.   
I started using this site because I found it to be an effective and fun communication tool with which I could reach out to others who have similar interests. The ability to communicate openly and share information with a widespread user base was and is very valuable to me. Early on, under account names now defunct because I expressed political opinions someone didn't like, I made personal connections that never would have happened had the site not existed. I formed friendships with people all over the world. I discovered whole communities with a variety of interests and opinions, and a place for discussion and debate that helped me expand my knowledge and sharpen my critical thinking skills and as a result, evolve my whole outlook on life.    
And then something terrible happened.       
I watched you reduce Reddit's usefulness and comfortable openness with the addition of censorship tools armed and executed with political bias. I've seen you shadowban users for expressing disapproved opinions. I've seen you quietly eclipse or even delete discussions about disapproved topics. Simply put, I've watched the tools purportedly created to protect the site from spam get exploited as silencing tools to "protect" the site from open, meaningful discussion that might lead to conclusions which don't jive with a specific worldview.        
I've seen you selectively enforce rules of conduct depending on the political affiliation of the accused. I've seen you refuse to communicate with subreddit moderators, so that they cannot inform their subscribers on how to use the site without falling afoul of your increasingly limiting biases. I've seen you use arbitrary labeling to excuse banning links to small news sites based on whether or not they align with a specific worldview. Seeing you ban users for linking to news and research published on sites against which you have a political bias has been very disturbing. It indicates a sense of entitlement to manipulate public opinion by limiting what can be presented on a widely used discussion hub. You couldn't find a better way to destroy faith in site admins than these behaviors. This makes the site look unprofessional to the point of appearing as a fly-by-night operation.
Pao was a problem, but she wasn't THE problem. The censorship, the unequal application of site rules and site disciplinary measures, and the constant flouting of user interests in favor of arrogantly telling us what we should want and what we should like all started before she came to Reddit. Mistreating your users and mods is why #RedditRevolt exists. Firing one of your most popular employees because she wouldn't do something unethical was the last straw. Please ask Victoria Taylor to come back. She didn't deserve what was done to her and your consumers, the users of the site, are outraged at the way she was treated.
No matter who you put in the driver's seat, if your site stays on the road you've chosen there are many of us who will never be on board with you. We won't adopt a particular worldview if it becomes the only one permitted on Reddit. We'll abandon the site as the sinking ship it is, and go to one of many others which are available, or we will create our own, and because many of us have learned from #GamerGate's example, we can and will take the site's ad revenue with us.    
Political bias in site administration takes the social out of social networking. If you want to limit Reddit to just another of several social sites dominated by one small, ideologically restricted portion of the population, you're doing it right. You won't grow, but you'll have a nice, comfortable echo chamber in which to feel more influential than you can actually be in the environment you've created.    
If you want growth in user interest and enthusiasm, higher ranking, and to once again be the social communication hub that you started out as in the beginning, drop the political censorship and let people talk... even the ones who say things you don't like... bring back Victoria, and bring some transparency and consistency into your relationship with your consumers.     
State the site's rules clearly and make them unmistakable, so they will be easy to follow, and apply them evenly. Do not have or use "unwritten" rules. If it's unwritten, it's not a rule. It is unfair to all of your users and creates a hostile environment when you invent "rules" on the spot as an excuse to shadowban. And don't use your own rules against vote manipulation as a means of vote manipulation. We do notice when you do that.            
Don't feel that labeling some news & information sites "not journalistic" because they're small or you don't identify with their area of coverage justifies censoring links to them. That only creates an environment that is hostile to anyone wanting to discuss issues and concepts largely covered by media that isn't mainstream. People are capable of reading, assessing, and debating information presented with these links. Denying your users the choice is tantamount to treating us like we're too stupid to form our own opinions.     
Don't make yourselves unavailable to users who contact you, especially subreddit moderators. Don't make your subreddit moderators constantly beg for important information on site administration, rules, maintenance, and updates, especially given the amount of work many of them do without expecting anything in return. You are mistreating valuable unpaid volunteers. Nobody should have to tell you how unprofessional that is, or how unwise.    
That's it; all we're asking for is some transparency, and fair treatment of all of your employees, volunteers, and consumers. Those are not difficult requests to fulfill. Reddit doesn't have to sink because of this conflict. It can become better, stronger, and more stable. It's up to you, admins. If you tighten your grip, you'll choke Reddit to death. If you make it functional, unbiased, and open, you'll have the user base you want. We're all waiting to see which road you'll choose.
To be honest, for a long time I stopped bothering to write to Reddit's administrators because they have a long-standing habit of not listening, but right now they seem to be possibly inclined to it.

Am I holding my breath for a result?

Not at all. However, the only chance at salvaging the site is if even the most frustrated Redditors are willing to give it a shot, communicate our complaints to the administrators, and allow them a chance to fix things.
They're going to have to decide whether they want a social popular, influential bookmarking/networking site, or an echo chamber where they keep tight control on discussion while keeping their volunteers and their consumers largely in the dark about site administration. It's their job to try to fix things, but it's our job to communicate what we want to see, and whether or not the changes they're making are satisfactory. It's my hope that other redditors will also write to the admins, letting them know that the desire for transparency, fair treatment, and unbiased administration (and the reinstatement of Victoria Taylor) is a widely held interest.

The feminist derailing fallacy

Feminists abuse the term "derailing" as a tool to avoid information that contradicts an opinion, belief, or attitude they want to promote. While the term ordinarily refers to taking a discussion off on an unrelated tangent, feminists instead use it to describe any speech that contradicts one of their assertions. They rely on mislabeling relevant information as irrelevant and a distraction in order to protect disinformation from scrutiny and potential contradiction. It is like a line from The Wizard of Oz; "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

This exploitation of the term is rooted in a combined sense of ownership and entitlement to dictate public opinion. These ideologues believe, in all seriousness, that they own women and by extension, all gender issues. Therefore they feel morally exempt from being questioned or contradicted in assertions they make on our behalf, even when engaging the public in a dialogue led by an unsupported and potentially damaging claim.

One of the more ridiculous examples of this is their response to women who refuse to be fodder for the movement's ideological declarations. Feminists begin issue discussions with pronouncements like twitter's #yesallwomen, intended as blanket statements which generalize the experiences and beliefs of some women to all women. None of us are permitted under their worldview to disagree with their narrative about our lives, our experiences, our needs, wants, and beliefs. When we do we are silenced by a special brand of projection, accused of doing that which we're protesting. Feminists attempt to silence dissenting women by shouting us down with accusations that women who, in describing our experiences, question or contradict their dogma are "talking over other women to deny their experiences."

In other words, feminists are claiming that their experience of having ideological beliefs about women's lives is a more valid description of us than our own experience of living them. They use that claim to treat any resistance to their appropriation of our voices as an attack, rather than a defense against a presumptuous violation of personal boundaries.

Another example which is equally ridiculous is their response when their advocacy for a gendered government approach to a genderless issue is contradicted. The method is very similar to that used with women who refuse to be feminism's props. The accusation of derailing is used to shout down the voices of men and boys by treating their experience of conditions or circumstances, no matter how common, as an intrusion on what feminists want to portray as uniquely female experiences. The purpose in this case to sneak bigoted marginalization of men and boys past public scrutiny so that lobbying efforts for discriminatory law and policy will not be recognized for what they are.

This pretense has been a very effective tool for feminists desiring to enforce an ideological monopoly on gender issues discussion, especially, but not exclusively, in the areas of intimate partner and sexual violence. It has been used not only to shut dissenting voices out of feminist discussions, but also discussions involving the general public, discussions in academic and professional settings, and in the legislative process.

This is how American feminists manipulated the public and legislators into accepting a change from the genderless Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 to the female-specific, feminist research and training funding Violence Against Women Act of 1994. When men's advocates call for equal funding for assistance for men, feminists treat it as an attempt to siphon funds away from female victims they've convinced legislators and the public are more numerous and more in need. And to maintain that illusion, they accuse anyone offering evidence of female perpetration and male victims of "derailing" discussion about female experiences and female needs.

This tactic relies on two things: The fear of being seen as disruptive and rude, and the promise that diplomacy will result in some form of cooperative good will between these ideologues and the groups against whom they have used it. Feminists have demonstrated over and over that the former is going to happen regardless of when and where we speak, and the latter is simply a false hope. Believing they own these discussions, feminists invade and attempt to impose their ideological beliefs on any discussion about issues related to gender, and even many which are not. The only way for nonfeminists to have open discussion that is not dominated by feminist rhetoric and feminist sensibilities is to simply have it; to refuse to allow such accusations to shut us down. Speak up. Don't let feminists have a monopoly all discussion on gender issues.