I don't want to break the rules, I want to understand them.
With this post I am hoping to discuss Reddit's rule 1, and what may or may not constitute promoting identity-based hate or attacks and whether or not context matters.
So I got my first ever warning from the internet, I've never had any marks against any of my social media accounts as far as I know, so although I am not immune to or sheltered from controversial opinions, this is my first time being told I've specifically committed a no no.
I've unwittingly broken Rule 1, by "promoting identity-based hate or attacks".
Context: A post about an article where residents collected money to buy a field behind their street to prevent the traveller community from camping there.
I replied to this comment, specifically the "So the police can only go into their campsites if they're willing/able to take sufficient forces to arrest most of the adults".
My comment began with a preface of "I do not endorse violence", because I absolutely do not, but I do endorse confrontation. This word itself has a very broad definition, you have to confront the fact that your car needs expensive repairs, you confront your roommate about leaving dirty dishes on the table.
The hypothetical I posed was that if every man in the community were to confront the travellers in a large group, the police would then be willing to allocate sufficient resources to support the resolution of the problem. Because in my country from my observations, usually confrontations with travellers involve <10 people from the public/council/police which then get outnumbered by the travellers at what looks like 3:1 and unfortunately the travellers tend to be the ones who instigate the violence.
Transparency: As my comment was removed so quickly I have not been able to verify word for word exactly what I wrote but I certainly did not promote any violence or hate, I did not say anything should/would/could happen, it was more to promote discussion around leveraging police action.
My only concern is that if just using the word "violence" in a post, whether preceded by "I do not endorse" or not, or using the words "all the men", or using the word "confront" together in a post, which most likely would have a system detecting the subject was a marginalised group, automatically flags these things up.
If this is the case then it feels extremely difficult to avoid breaking these rules, as if using these words is enough to get you a warning for promoting identity based hate, then it would make sense that the post itself is doing that too, as you could make the argument that a community pooling their own money to buy land so they can prevent a specific group of people from accessing it, is hateful in itself?
I appealed but they stood by the offence. In an ideal world they would paste my comment in their reply to me highlighting what was promoting hate/attack and how it promotes it.
I will suck it up and continue my peaceful use of the website, I'm just hoping to find some clarification, I may not always agree with the rules but I agree to follow them.
Thanks :)