Talk:Controversial Reddit communities

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(90d)

| archive = Talk:Controversial Reddit communities/Archive %(counter)d

| counter = 2

| maxarchivesize = 125K

| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}

| minthreadstoarchive = 1

| minthreadsleft = 5

}}

{{oldafdfull| date = 24 June 2014 (UTC) | result = keep | page = Controversial Reddit communities }}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|1=

{{WikiProject Internet culture |importance=High |needs-image=yes}}

}}

{{Copied|from=Violentacrez|from_oldid=755829174|to=Controversial Reddit Communities|to_oldid=755829203|to_diff=755829203|date=December 20, 2016}}

{{Refideas

| 1 = {{cite book |last=Lumsden |first=Karen |title=Online Othering: Exploring Digital Violence and Discrimination on the Web |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |year=2019 |isbn=978-3-0301-2633-9 |editor1-last=Lumsden |editor1-first=K. |editor2-last=Harmer |editor2-first=E. |chapter={{thin space}}{{' "}}I Want to Kill You in Front of Your Children" Is Not a Threat. It's an Expression of a Desire': Discourses of Online Abuse, Trolling, and Violence on r/MensRights |pages=91–115 |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-12633-9_4}}

| 2 = {{cite journal |last=Massanari |first=Adrienne |title=#Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures |journal=New Media & Society |date=2015 |volume=19 |issue=3 |pages=329–346 |doi=10.1177/1461444815608807 |issn=1461-4448 |s2cid=9236382 |doi-access=free}}

| 3 = {{cite book |ref=harv |last=Massanari |first=Adrienne |editor=Lind, R.A. |title=Race and Gender in Electronic Media: Content, Context, Culture |date=2017 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York |isbn=978-1-3172-6612-9 |pages=312–327 |chapter='Damseling For Dollars': Toxic Technocultures and Geek Masculinity}}

| 4 ={{cite news |last=Plaha |first=Monika |date= 2022- 08 |title=Inside the secret world of trading nudes |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62564028 |work= |location=UK |publisher=bbc.com}}

}}

Active Subreddit Section

Some of the additions and omissions here are, frankly, ridiculous. BPT shouldn't be here at all and is only considered controversial to racists. Similarly, there's dozens of active hate subreddits with evidence of their hate documented all over the internet (Europe, PoliticalCompassMemes, TrueUnpopularOpinion, and more). r/AgainstHateSubreddits does a really good job at documenting them. This page seems to heavily imply that there's some form of symmetry between the left-wing additions and the right-wing additions. This is not the case. 2603:8000:7F0:B1D0:756C:F143:D90:C5A1 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:Alternatively, remove the active subreddit section in its entirety. 2603:8000:7F0:B1D0:756C:F143:D90:C5A1 (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

::Either the intro needs rewriting, or many of the "active" are likely irrelevant to the topic as it is currently framed. Koncorde (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:::At the very least it needs to be acknowledged that this is not an exhaustive list and the criteria for choosing entries is different than the criteria for other categories. Banned subreddits have at least one nondebatable feature: they were banned. The active list is more subjective because the only commonality is that some people don't like them, which arguably applies to every subreddit of a certain size. And if we somehow made the active list exhaustive with strict criteria, it would still be excessively long.

:::It should be completely removed, in my opinion. 2603:8000:7F0:B1D0:4FDF:CB3F:4E12:EC60 (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

::::@2603:8000:7F0:B1D0:4FDF:CB3F:4E12:EC60 hard no. just because it's difficult to capture the breadth of information, doesn't mean you should censor it completely. Spinsterella (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Then the intro needs to be rewritten to make it clear that the list is not exhaustive and the criteria for additions are very different. Or maybe rename it from "active" to something else because contextually, it reads as if there's a direct relationship active subreddits and banned ones. As if being listed as active is the first step to later being listed as banned when that is not the case. I'm against censorship but I'm also against misleading readers. 2603:8000:7F0:B1D0:F37A:D36B:6FCE:2D0 (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::@2603:8000:7F0:B1D0:F37A:D36B:6FCE:2D0

::::::sounds good to "Then the intro needs to be rewritten to make it clear that the list is not exhaustive and the criteria for additions are very different." Spinsterella (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|the only commonality is that some people don't like them}} The only criteria should be, "Have reliable sources categorized the subreddit as controversial". It's not the nebulous requirement you seem to imply... it's not like r/cats is going to suddenly show up on this list, and if it does without a source, out it goes. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Remove r/Whitepeopletwitter, add r/Conservative

Mistaking three satirical posts for real and showcasing them amongst similar genuine posts made by unhinged rightwingers is not a controversy. It's an example on Poe's Law. It'n nowhere near the same level as some of the other very problematic subreddits that are also featured on the list.

The fact that it's on this list, but not r/Conservative, a subreddit that is so notoriously toxic, that other subreddits have no choice but to automatically ban any user that participated in it in order to crack down on their non-stop brigading and trolling, makes one raise an eyebrow. 46.97.170.199 (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:The r/WhitePeopleTwitter sourcing and inclusion seems fine. Also, WP:NOTFORUM. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, the sourcing is fine, and these three incidents have in fact happened. That's not enough to classify the subreddit as controversial, unless the sources themselves call it controversial. 46.97.170.199 (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@46.97.170.199 agreed. Spinsterella (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

works cited?

what's what the works cited? ok to delete? Spinsterella (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:I went ahead and re-named the section to "General references" WP:GENREF. Not sure who put those references in, or what they were supposed to support... I would not support removing them unless that was determined. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

r/atheism

I am surprised that r/atheism is not on this list. 69.128.89.60 (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reddit#c-120.28.168.118-20250515043700-About_maguad_family

Maguad family 120.28.168.118 (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)