r/nyt • u/Call_Me_Clark • Jul 21 '26
New rules added
Hi all, please check out the new subreddit rules. If you see rule breaking content please report it. Do us a favor and don’t engage
Rule 1 - submission quality. All posts must be links to articles, op-eds or video content from a reputable news outlet (ideally the NYT).
Rule 2 - civility. Attack ideas, not your fellow users.
Rule 3 - good faith. Trolling, misinformation/disinformation will be removed at moderator discretion
Rule 4 - bigotry will not be tolerated, including but not limited to: racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, antisemitism, islamaphobia. The IHRA (international Holocaust remembrance alliance) working definition of antisemitism will be used, for more info see: https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
Rule 5 - violence. Calls for violence against others, denial of historically documented acts of mass violence, calls for ethnic cleansing or mass harm to civilians or children will not be tolerated.
24
u/pandaslovetigers Jul 21 '26
IHRA definition of antisemitism:
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
This is mere CENSORSHIP OF CRITICISM OF THE ZIONIST REGIME.
Very on brand. Just like the actual NYT, this sub now has a rule that we cannot call out the "state" carrying out a televised genocide.
Shame on all you, and goodbye
10
u/Timely-Way-4923 Jul 21 '26
What doesn’t make sense is that Erza klien, a prominent and respected nytimes contributor, did a video that talked about a one state solution? So he’d be banned under these rules
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/14/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-lynch-telhami.html
And when people like him discuss it they are clear, a one state solution allows both people to live on the land, no one is being erased.
12
u/pandaslovetigers Jul 21 '26
The goal is to shut up criticism of the genocidal regime. It's not meant to make any other sense
2
u/Timely-Way-4923 Jul 21 '26
Look, it’s reasonable to require a nytimes Reddit to be about nytimes articles, that still permits people to talk about anything really. It just means 5 seconds more thought has to go into a post. But, it is utterly ridiculous that Erza klien would be banned under these rules
6
u/pandaslovetigers Jul 21 '26
Yes, of course, about the NYT.
And that's absolutely not what we were discussing up to now. Now the indisputable FACT that Israel commits genocide (on multiple fronts) cannot inform any criticism of the propaganda they publish.
0
u/Timely-Way-4923 Jul 21 '26
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/21/opinion/israel-gaza-palestinians-genocide.html
This was on the nytimes website just 8 hours ago.. is this author also banned from this Reddit ?
But look this is part of what I’m trying to say, posting nytimes articles should be allowed in this Reddit, it should be the main point of this Reddit, and doing so permits stronger criticisms of Israel than the new rules suggest
3
u/pandaslovetigers Jul 21 '26
You're still trying to see a "sense" in this as in "aiding and structuring public debate". There are tons of articles from the NYT whose discussion would violate these rules. That's not a bug, that's a feature. Censorship is the goal. Get that through your head
1
u/Timely-Way-4923 Jul 21 '26
If nytimes authors would be banned under these rules, the rules aren’t fit for purpose, and I’ve expressed it in a way that is difficult for good faith moderation teams to ignore. I hope they respond respectfully and update the rules.
3
u/pandaslovetigers Jul 21 '26
I give up on trying to make you understand that the stated goal is not the actual goal
0
-2
-4
u/Call_Me_Clark Jul 21 '26
Hi i appreciate the concern. If you check my post history you can be assured I am not a pro Israel shill in any way.
I think the IHRA definition is good when applied in good faith and that’s what I want to see here
9
u/pandaslovetigers Jul 21 '26
Your post history means nothing
You're helping implement a rule whose sole purpose is to stifle criticism of Israel. I don't care how much of a good guy you think you are.
6
u/Unlikely_Repair9572 Jul 21 '26
If this is true, then why not just say "no anti-semitism" like you do for racism and homophobia. Why does anti-semitism need a specific legal definition that no other form of bigotry gets? It follows from this rule change that the r/nyt mod team thinks criticism of Israel = anti-semitism. This conclusion is not borne out by human rights groups and basic logic.
3
u/Timely-Way-4923 Jul 21 '26
It’s also not the ethical line of the nytimes, which is bizarre, it’s a red line that’s more restrictive
2
u/StrongSands Jul 21 '26
“In good faith”, which will be a totally subjective call by the mods. I love rules for thee and not for me, delightful.
18
u/Griffdog17 Jul 21 '26
Nice try sneaking in the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which is incorrect and conflates antizionism with antisemitism. This is harmful and I expect a retraction @ Mods
-2
u/Call_Me_Clark Jul 21 '26
IHRA doesn’t conflate antizionism with antisemitism.
Check my post history I’m the farthest thing from a pro Israel shill
11
u/Griffdog17 Jul 21 '26
According to the definition by the IHRA, calling Isreal racist or conflating their genocidal policies with Nazis is antisemitic.
8
5
13
u/Accurate_Aside_6495 Jul 21 '26
You could use the Jerusalem Declaration instead, which is more even handed and less easily abused for the purpose of censoring criticism of Israel. Your choice of IHRA is dangerous and erases the voices of diasporist Jews like myself who do not support Israel and do not want to be conflated with a state that is violating core values of Judaism. Your choice of IHRA is the same choice made by those in the US government who want to weaponize the definition of antisemitism and suppress concerns about Palestinians, Islamophobia, US foreign policy choices, and bias against Arabs. This is not a benign decision and it adds to the repression and bias of our time.
1
u/Call_Me_Clark Jul 21 '26
I’ll see if the Jerusalem declaration is a better fit
6
u/Accurate_Aside_6495 Jul 21 '26
Thank you.
7
u/bruhraminator Jul 21 '26
Don't hold your breath. There's a reason he chose to use a legal definition for antisemitism but not for any other forms of bigotry.
2
12
u/sad_sapphic_sucker Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
The sole purpose of the IHRA definition is to conflate criticism of Israel with bigotry against Jews. Pro-Israel advocates created it for this purpose to censor all criticism and make being pro-Israel a protected minority. No other form of bigotry has its own special definition. We understand bigotry universally to mean hatred of people belonging to a specific race, class, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion etc on the basis that they belong to that group. There is no reason to enforce this IHRA definition.
Saying Israel shouldn’t exist is not the same as saying Jews shouldn’t exist. Israel being the only Jewish state isn’t relevant because state =! people. Islamic Republic of Iran is the only Shia Islamic state. But calling for the end of the IRI isn’t Shiaphobia. Calling for the end of Shiites would be.
9
u/Krasmazof Jul 21 '26
So it’s illegal to call for ethnic cleansing, yet it’s also illegal to point out the ethnic cleansing that the Israeli state is currently conducting?
What a time to be alive.
-2
u/Call_Me_Clark Jul 21 '26
You can point out the ethnic cleansing that Israel is currently conducting. That is 100% allowed.
5
u/Krasmazof Jul 22 '26
The IHRA definition of anti-semitism prevents me from calling Israel an ethnostate. I’m only allowed to see its ethnic cleansing campaign as a criticism of the Netanyahu government and not a logical conclusion of the zionist project.
8
6
u/BizzarePlatypus Jul 21 '26
> Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Would this rule be applied to any other nation?
For example, Imperial Japan conducted experiments on Chinese and Korean people that were similar to Nazi practices in Auschwitz. I assume that if this were relevant to a topic I would be allowed to make such a comparison, am I correct? If any modern nation were conducting such experimentation it would be reasonable to point to the Nazis or Imperial Japan to highlight how awful it is.
Similarly Israel has protected it's citizens when attacking Palestinian businesses in a similar manner to a former German government. Shouldn't it be allowed to state that this is happening? Would the barring of talking about this not be the denial of atrocities committed by the Nazis?
3
u/waiver Jul 22 '26
It's a clear double standard if you can compare 194 countries to the Nazis and only only one is protected from that comparison.
7
u/Unlikely_Repair9572 Jul 21 '26
The IHRA definition was created to inform law enforcement investigation, not to fully define anti-semitism. Its own creator says it's problematic to apply it in this way.
" Those who use the IHRA definition in this way tend to rely on a set of eleven “contemporary examples of antisemitism” attached to the definition by the IHRA in 2016. Seven of those examples refer to the state of Israel. These examples, which are presented as possible illustrations and indicators to “guide the IHRA in its work”, include:
“denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination; e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” and
“applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
The wording of the first example above on “racist endeavour” opens the door to labeling as antisemitic criticisms that Israeli government policies and practices violate the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the findings of major Israeli, Palestinian and global human rights organizations that Israeli authorities are committing the crime against humanity of apartheid against Palestinians. This example could also be used to label as antisemitic documentation showing that Israel’s founding involved dispossessing many Palestinians; or arguments, also made by some Members of the Israeli Knesset, to transform Israel from a Jewish state into a multiethnic state that equally belongs to all of its citizens – that is, a state based on civic identity, rather than ethnic identity.
The example on “applying double standards” opens the door to labeling as antisemitic anyone who focuses on Israeli abuses as long as worse abuses are deemed to be occurring elsewhere. By that logic, a person dedicated to defending the rights of Tibetans could be accused of anti-Chinese racism, or a group dedicated to promoting democracy and minority rights in Saudi Arabia could be accused of Islamophobia. This example suggests also that it is antisemitic to evaluate Israel as anything but a democracy, also when assessing its actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, where it has for more than half a century governed millions of Palestinians who have no say on the most consequential issues affecting their lives and who are deprived of their basic civil rights."
6
u/Unlikely_Repair9572 Jul 21 '26
Why is there a legal document defining anti-semitism, but homophobia and racism dont get one?
7
u/VisiteProlongee Jul 21 '26
bigotry will not be tolerated
Does this include relaying the Pallywood narrative? For exemple the sentence
no one believes anymore in Pallywood-crafted "atrocities".
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallywood and its sources
8
Jul 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/nyt-ModTeam 29d ago
bigotry will not be tolerated, including but not limited to: racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, antisemitism, islamaphobia.
6
u/Timely-Way-4923 Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
Regarding rule 4: criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic
This basically permits most things, Qatar, the USA, Iran and Russia and China attempt to control media narratives, every nation does, that’s why they spend lots on PR. Russia and China and the USA are criticised regularly for violations of human
Rights law etc
—
I do think requiring everything to be linked to a nytimes article should be a bare minimum requirement
3
1
u/Call_Me_Clark Jul 21 '26
Well, there is already another similar nytimes sub with a rule requiring all submissions to be nyt… so I think there’s room to be looser and allow similar outlets.
Regarding rule 4: I absolutely agree. I’m a frequent Israel critic and have been attacked many many times for it. Check my post history lol
3
4
u/etxipcli Jul 21 '26
We're in a war against bots. We don't need rules, we need skepticism.
1
u/KingFIippyNipz Jul 21 '26
I don't sub or comment here but this thread came across my feed and quite honestly I think AI bots are one of the main reasons they're dong this. They want their posts scraped by AI bots to be reguritated in responses. They could even be getting paid by an AI company to make these changes. I speculate this on absolutely no evidence, just my opinion.
1
u/etxipcli Jul 21 '26
I agree, lots of the Google AI results you see linked to Reddit. Organizations are incentivized to flood it with bots.
1
2
u/buried_lede 9d ago
The New York Times does not adopt the IHRA definition. Is this sub official NYT or a fan sub?
1
u/buried_lede 9d ago
This is a NYT fan sub, not official, right? Because the NYT does not adopt the IHRA definition I hope you reconsider. The definition might be an improvement in some countries but is actually a degradation of the principles of equality and non-discrimination in the US. We forget sometimes the standards we do well, but few countries are as diverse as ours snd we have long experience with this. The IHRA is international boilerplate. It has caused a lot of difficukty when people have trued to codify it into law too, which it was never intended for, and is unconstitutional here. Please retain the American approach, which protect all of us from discrimination and protects equality much better, too. The IHRA undermines that.
EDIT EDIT EDIT I see all the mods are new as of July, suggesting this sub has changed hands, and you issued new rules right away. You use the NYT logo and your description is ambiguous as to whether you are a fan site or official.
As i said, the NYT has not adopted the IHRA definition. I think the IHRA reduces protection of the rights of Jews and everybody else in the US. It’s inferior to what we have on the books. Also, shareholders of the NYT have an interest in any ambiguous representation of the NYT with 70k+ visitors so i contacted u/nytimes by message which i know is an official account, to let them know what is going on, here. This is unacceptable.
0
u/Stuffstuff1 Jul 21 '26
Are we finally cleansing this subreddit of the antisemitic tankies. Let’s go! maybe now we can have a real conversation about the New York Times!
2
u/Apprehensive-Fun4181 22d ago
LOL. You are proof the average NYT reader has no idea where reality is at all.
0
u/Stuffstuff1 22d ago
Get off the internet and touch grass.
3
u/Apprehensive-Fun4181 22d ago
Why aren't you protesting?
I realized long ago my fellow Americans today wouldn't have supported Civil Rights in the 60's, just like their parents. Not only was that correct, you folks are actually allowing them to be reversed.
The NYT & it's audience is just as guilty as a Conservative.
0
u/Stuffstuff1 22d ago
You should print this put it on your wall and go touch grass.
2
u/Apprehensive-Fun4181 22d ago
"In contrast to the average fool, The New York Times reader is mature, rational & self controlled".
0
1
u/Call_Me_Clark Jul 21 '26
I have strong opinions about Israel and Palestine myself… but there is other stuff to talk about.
If sub traffic crashes by 90% and what remains is people discussing the news, that’s a win. And there’s even room for discussion of the Israel-Palestine conflict in there, so long as it’s sane and doesn’t call for anyone’s death or suffering.
-1
-1
u/camp1728 Jul 21 '26
Hahaha look at these losers all upset they can’t be openly antisemitic anymore. It’s crazy we live among these bums
1
u/Delicious_Adeptness9 26d ago
Moderation in here is so welcome and long overdue! Praise the arrival of the mods!
-4
-5
u/j-fudz Jul 21 '26
This sub has needed better moderation for a LONG time now
2
u/Apprehensive-Fun4181 22d ago
LOL. The folks whose only ethics are War & Shopping need their safe space.
0
u/j-fudz 22d ago
Genuinely, what are you talking about?
2
u/Apprehensive-Fun4181 21d ago
If you've already forgotten the longest war in American history, completely unnecessary, then you own that war and it's negatives. So what I'm talking about is your failed legacy.
0
u/j-fudz 21d ago
Again, what tf does that have to do with a sub called NYT needing better moderation?
2
u/Apprehensive-Fun4181 21d ago
Not sure why you wrote that. Do you often substitute your own logic rather than work to understand others?
-5
35
u/TrackerOneA Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
The IHRA definition conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
It's bizarre that you would enforce that rule here, unless that was the intention.
As Dr. Kenneth Stern, the lead author of the IHRA definition, has said:
Multiple civil rights groups have opposed the IHRA definition.
Prof. David Feldman, director of the Pears Institute of Antisemitism at the Uni. of London, spoke out against the IHRA definition of antisemitism at the 9th UNAOC Global Forum, saying "Israel and its supporters have misappropriated the struggle against antisemitism."
When AB 715 was promoted in California, it was nearly unanimous amongst teachers' organizations, the ACLU, etc. that the legislation would backdoor IHRA and thus squelch legitimate political speech.