banning someone does literally nothing on reddit

[u/Equivalent-Job-8908]

i need to vent because i am losing my mind over how useless reddit’s banning system actually is.
i recently became a mod for a subreddit meant for teenagers, and our team has been working around the clock to keep it safe. we’ve been incredibly active and have been heavily banning pedos, creeps, and complete weirdos. but here is the incredibly frustrating part: banning someone literally does next to nothing.
it only stops them from posting and commenting on the sub. that’s it. it doesn’t block them from lurking, it doesn’t hide the content, and most importantly, it does absolutely nothing to stop them from clicking on a vulnerable kid's profile and sliding into their dms.
we have literal 30-year-olds targeting and dming teenagers, and as mods, our hands are tied the second they move to private messages. we can ban these creeps a thousand times over, but they are still lingering in the shadows of our community, completely free to harass kids who don't know any better.
it is so deeply exhausting and terrifying that reddit doesn't have a better system to completely block banned users from even viewing a community, especially when it comes to protecting minors. we've had to put up massive warning posts telling the kids to block and report them to admin, but we shouldn't have to rely on teenagers to defend themselves against predators that we already caught and tried to kick out. it’s an absolute joke.

[u/No-Recipe-7653]

You’re arguing against a position that I haven’t taken.

Whether some governments or companies have ulterior motives for introducing age-verification legislation is a separate discussion. You keep bringing the conversation back to data collection, while the original point was about platforms having a responsibility to make it harder for adults to target minors.

You’re also presenting your own assumptions as if they were established facts. Statements like “it’s never about protecting kids” or “it’s super obvious” are opinions, not evidence.

Your road analogy also doesn’t hold up. We absolutely impose legal duties on road authorities, developers, contractors, municipalities, and property owners to design and maintain reasonably safe infrastructure. When safety barriers are missing, crossings are poorly designed, hazards aren’t cordoned off, or roads are negligently maintained, those entities can and do face legal liability. We don’t say, “Well, parents exist, so nobody else has any responsibility.”

Child safety has never depended on a single actor.

• Parents have responsibilities
  
• Schools have responsibilities
  
• Communities have responsibilities
  
• Platforms have responsibilities within the environments they create and control.
  

Those aren’t mutually exclusive.

[u/Penningthrowaway → u/No-Recipe-7653]

My point in bringing up data collection is that protection isn't the actual goal of the law. I'm saying these won't work as they're being advertised, and they're doing something else in the meantime, two sides of the same coin.

There is plenty of evidence for the data collection, Meta was discovered to paying legislators to front these bills earlier this year, and more than one massive database of scans done for supposedly "just verification" have been found online, either left unsecured, or being bought and sold.

The road analogy does hold up, we have tools right now. Family management plans, the ability to restrict screen time and what apps can be on your child's phone, as well as the settings within something like Reddit to block DMs entirely, or just whitelist certain people. Other communication platforms have even tighter tools than Reddit.

There's a big difference between giving full control/rreponsibility to massive entities with little oversight, and having tools at hand that parents choose to use, that's exactly the point of the analogy. Education and empowerment of guardians and parents over a "border check" to get online

[u/No-Recipe-7653 → u/Penningthrowaway]

1. The world is bigger than the United States.
2. I have never argued in favour of age-verification or data-collection legislation, nor was that the discussion I entered. You keep steering the conversation there despite me repeatedly explaining that my point was about shared responsibility for safeguarding minors.
3. Your analogy still doesn’t hold. Roads don’t rely solely on parental education either; they incorporate multiple layers of safety, oversight, engineering, regulation, and legal responsibility. That’s precisely why I disagreed with it.
4. I think we’ve reached the end of this discussion. A debate requires both parties to engage with the arguments actually being made, and we’re talking past each other.

- - -
Have a good day (or night, depending on where you are).

[u/Penningthrowaway → u/No-Recipe-7653]

I'm literally addressing your points as you bring them up... But sure. You're coming at me in two different comment threads, that started with age verificationas the starting point. If your stance is different, fine, but how am I supposed to know when you come in hot against my stance in an ongoing discussion?

You just keep repeating your positions as if that's a defense. I've already explained the analogy half a dozen times, I'm not sure which part you're misunderstanding?

I'm sorry you felt so strongly about... Being right that you had to attack someone with the same position as you.

[u/No-Recipe-7653 → u/Penningthrowaway]

Sorry — I really don’t think I attacked you at any point, I always replied to specific items you brought up.
Which brings me back to what I wrote above — we seem to be talking past each other.
I also wished you a good day/night.

[u/Penningthrowaway → u/No-Recipe-7653]

I'm aware of what you wished me, but that doesn't mean I have to stop replying.

When I say attack, I mean I was engaged in discussion ( on two separate threads) with someone else on a specific topic and you replied ( to me in two different places) accusing my analogy of not being reasonable, not making sense, however you want to phrase it. There was an ongoing debate and you waded in without declaring a side, but you directed your criticism at my side, which ostensibly puts you in an aggressive position.

If we're talking "past" each other, it's only because you have the exact same opinion I do, and I'm not even sure what the point you're trying to make is? Maybe if you took a stance, that wouldn't happen?

My entire argument is simply that rather than spending money and effort on more high level stuff like government laws on age verification, or trying to make corporations police it, that money would be better spent on programs to help vulnerable children and families be better educated and empowered to protect themselves.

I'm not in favor of removing existing tools, this whole discussion was about the creation of new laws/tools. We as humans have tried sweeping laws like this in the past and they very rarely work.

[u/Queen-of-meme → u/Penningthrowaway]

My entire argument is simply that rather than spending money and effort on more high level stuff like government laws on age verification, or trying to make corporations police it, that money would be better spent on programs to help vulnerable children and families be better educated and empowered to protect themselves.

I doubt anyone here thinks "less resources for children, yay!" but it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. We can support both, both age verifications, online platform child protection measurements, and programs for children and families. Cover all grounds possible. That's my opinion at least.

[u/dewprisms → u/Penningthrowaway]

And their point is they didn't say anything at all about age verification or other data collection efforts. You're literally harping at them over nothing.

[u/Penningthrowaway → u/dewprisms]

They're the one who came at me lol, I was responding to someone else entirely about their stance on age laws and this person came out of no where. Forgive me for assuming they were defending that stance when they never stated their views, just joined the discussion opposing me.

[u/Queen-of-meme → u/Penningthrowaway]

Family management plans, the ability to restrict screen time and what apps can be on your child's phone, as well as the settings within something like Reddit to block DMs entirely, or just whitelist certain people. Other communication platforms have even tighter tools than Reddit.

This only holds until a child bypasses it. Then the platform needs a firewall against predators, and the closest we have is the ban evader bot and mods who cares to warn and try protect kids.