Anderson Cooper's Reddit Jailbait Hit Piece

Having the fortune of actually knowing a lot about the subject of internet speech and site management, I found myself flaring up with anger many times while watching this segment. I guess while Anderson Cooper isn't saving children in the streets of Haiti, he's busy being a lazy sensationalist journalist. Oh wait.



In the video, Anderson Cooper and his panel of know-nothings make the following arguments: reddit is in the wrong for allowing stuff like pictures of scantly clad teens and photos of dead bodies to be posted on their site. One panelist thinks it is a borderline first amendment issue that jailbait is allowed. The suggestion is made that reddit is implicitly encouraging its users to post pictures without permission from their owners. Very little is mentioned about the entirety of reddit, which is a phenomenal site for many reasons and a tremendous force for good. It is said that reddit is wrong to call themselves a haven for free speech.

Let me get a couple things out of the way:

1) I am not advocating the posting of jailbait or pictures of dead bodies.

2) Saying that something is borderline is like saying that you know it's not a crime, but you're going to do your damnedest to make it seem like a crime.

Okay, let's get down to it.

Welcome to the internet. Welcome to the human fucking race. Half-naked teens and pictures of dead babies have been around for ages. At least reddit hasn't built its reputation on such things like other sites have. Before reddit, there was 4chan (still is, actually). Before 4chan, there was Rotten. Waking up in 2011 to these things existing on the internet is the equivalent to being born yesterday. I want to see a segment decrying Motherless, which is a far worse offender. Is it wrong to allow such things to be posted on your site? It's certainly not illegal, so leave your opinions at home where you left your dignity. You know what I do when I see a web page that shows things I'm not interested in? I leave. Aiming an entire hit piece at a site because a couple sections (out of THOUSANDS) are offensive is ratings pandering and it is not good journalism.

Here's a very important piece of legal information that I would expect two legal contributors to know about: a website that allows unmoderated user contributions and does not actually host any of the posted media cannot be held responsible for the actions of its users. I know this because I've been running forums for over a decade, so believe me when I say that I am very intimate with what can and cannot be done on the internet. reddit never asserts that they do not have control over their posters; they simply do not interfere with site activity as a matter of policy because of the equilibrium that they've established. Erik Martin's quote about the site being a platform and not an editorial site should be all someone needs to hear in order to nod their head and back off. The fact that one panelist admitted to never having heard of reddit before was telling; one wonders if he knows anything about the social side of the internet at all. He knows not of what he speaks.

If Anderson Cooper suggests that these pictures are being stolen from someone's Facebook page, shouldn't the target be Facebook? Of course not, this is a hit piece! Cooper also brings up reddit's claims to do good, as if it is ironic that they also allow jailbait photos. The editor responsible for his words has his priorities dead wrong. There is a reason why the first amendment is the first point on the Bill of Rights. It is the most important aspect of a democracy and it should be immutable. Being one of the world's largest platforms for unhindered free speech is the single most important contribution reddit makes to the online community. Challenging the pillar of free speech because some folks are offended only speaks to how far the media has fallen. It speaks to the fear in everyone's eyes. It is cowardly and cheap. This, and I haven't even begun to mention all of the various good deeds that reddit and its community inspires.

Yes, a community full of mouth-breathing perverts has the ability to do great things when they're motivated! If you know what the phrases "random acts of pizza" or "today you, tomorrow me" mean, then you're probably already aware of some of the good things that go on in the vastly more popular areas of reddit proper. Great amounts of donations are raised by the reddit community when disasters happen. Down and out users are helped every day by random strangers. There is a suicide watch subreddit. There are subreddits devoted to the spread of education, the promotion of science, and the influence of human rights. Sure, there is porn and gore, too, but does that make it a bad place? I should know better than most that these things are not indicative of bad people. In the early 2000's, I raised a community from a few thousand perverts looking for naked pictures into what its users considered to be the best place on the internet to have a civilized discussion at the time. "Come for the porn, stay for the conversation" was the motto. Shame on anyone who would discount the whole thing because they were offended by only a small bit of it.