Rule 1: no harassment, bullying or threats of violence; inciting or hateful users and communities will be banned
Rule 1 says everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying and threats of violence, and that Reddit is not a place for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups. Communities and users that incite violence, or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability, "will be banned". The rule links to separate policies on harassment and bullying, violent content, and hate based on identity or vulnerability, which appear as later pages in this document.
Supporting quotations
Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of [harassment, bullying]
Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on [identity or vulnerability]
Qualifications & exceptions
"Will be banned" applies to communities and users that incite violence or promote hate based on identity or vulnerability; the lighter-sounding "right to use Reddit free of" harassment, bullying and threats describes the protection, with enforcement left to the Enforcement section.
Rule 2: follow community rules and do not spam or engage in disruptive behavior
Rule 2 tells you to abide by community rules, take part authentically in communities where you have a personal interest, and not to spam or engage in disruptive behaviors, including content manipulation, that interfere with Reddit communities. Spam and disruptive behavior each link to their own policy pages, which appear later in this document.
Supporting quotations
Abide by community rules. Participate authentically in communities where you have a personal interest
do not [spam](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/articles/360043504051) or engage in [disruptive behaviors](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/articles/360043066412) (including content manipulation) that interfere with Reddit communities
Qualifications & exceptions
The disruptive-behavior prohibition is limited to behavior that interferes with Reddit communities.
Rule 3: no instigating harassment with personal information; no intimate media without consent
Rule 3 asks you to respect other people's privacy. Instigating harassment, for example by revealing someone's personal or confidential information, is not allowed. Separately, you must never post or threaten to post intimate or sexually explicit media of someone without their consent. The links lead to policy pages on personal information and intimate media that appear later in this document.
Supporting quotations
Instigating harassment, for example by revealing someone’s [personal or confidential information]
Never post or threaten to post [intimate or sexually-explicit media]
Qualifications & exceptions
The personal-information prohibition is framed around instigating harassment, with revealing personal or confidential information given as an example ("for example"), not as an exhaustive description.
contrast (model-proposed): Posting someone's personal information or links to it is not allowed and will get you banned — contrast: Rule 3 frames the personal-information prohibition around instigating harassment (revealing information is given as an example), while the linked help page says posting personal information or links to it is not okay and will get you banned, with no harassment qualifier. The two wordings pull in different directions on scope; the source does not reconcile them.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Rule 4: no sexual, abusive or suggestive content involving minors, and no predatory behavior
Rule 4 forbids sharing, or encouraging the sharing of, sexual, abusive or suggestive content involving minors. It also states that any predatory or inappropriate behavior involving a minor is "strictly prohibited". The links lead to separate policy pages on sexual content involving minors and abuse involving minors, later in this document.
Supporting quotations
Do not share or encourage the sharing of [sexual]
Any predatory or inappropriate behavior involving a minor is also strictly prohibited.
Rule 6: label content and communities so people have predictable experiences
Rule 6 asks you to properly label content and communities so that people have predictable experiences, particularly where the content is graphic, sexually explicit or offensive. The enforcement section mentions NSFW tags as one restriction Reddit may add to communities.
Supporting quotations
Ensure people have predictable experiences on Reddit by properly labeling content and communities, particularly content that is graphic, sexually-explicit, or offensive.
Not stated here
This rule does not define "properly labeling" or which labels (such as NSFW) are required; the specifics are not given in this rule text.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Harassment policy: do not bully, intimidate or target people or communities with abuse
The harassment policy tells users not to engage in behavior that bullies, intimidates, or targets other people or communities with abuse, and reminds them that real people are behind usernames. It says the policy is aimed at targeted, severe, or patterned abuse, including encouraging others to engage in abuse.
Supporting quotations
Do not engage in behavior that bullies, intimidates, or targets other people or communities with abuse.
we prohibit behavior that crosses the line into targeted, severe, or patterned abuse, including encouraging others to engage in abuse
Qualifications & exceptions
The page header says "Updated 15 days ago", a relative time with no absolute date, so the date of the current wording is not stated in the source.
Content & IP Rights · User right or choice
Harassment policy does not shield ideas, public figures or harsh criticism, but gives public figures some limits
The policy says it is designed to protect people from targeted personal abuse, not to shield ideas, beliefs, organizations or public figures from criticism, even harsh criticism. Having a strong opinion, criticizing someone's actions or downvoting is not against the rules. Public figures may face robust criticism about their public role or persona, but that does not permit harassment campaigns that directly target their family, compromise their personal safety, or incite serious harm on them.
Supporting quotations
not to shield ideas, beliefs, organizations, or public figures from criticism, even if it's harsh
it’s not against our rules to have a strong opinion, criticize someone’s actions, or downvote others’ content
Public figures may be subject to robust criticism and scrutiny related to their public role or persona, but this does not permit harassment campaigns that directly target their family, compromise their personal safety, or incite serious harm upon them.
Qualifications & exceptions
The permission to criticize is limited by the prohibition on targeted, severe or patterned abuse in the same policy.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Singling out individuals or groups for harassment is not allowed, including severe attacks and unwanted contact
The policy focuses on patterns of behavior and targeted actions, not just individual insults. Conduct listed as not allowed includes severe personal attacks such as wishing serious harm on someone, targeting someone's disclosed health conditions, past traumas, hardships or appearance, antagonizing communities (for example repeated off-topic "trolling" of subreddits), sexualizing someone without consent or sending unsolicited sexual content, and sustained campaigns of unwanted contact such as following a user across the platform or creating accounts specifically to abuse one person. The list is introduced as "including, but not limited to".
Supporting quotations
It is not allowed to single out an individual or group for harassment. This policy focuses on patterns of behavior and targeted actions, not just individual insults. This includes, but is not limited to:
Severe personal attacks, such as wishing or hoping for serious harm (e.g., death, severe illness) to fall upon another person
Targeting personal vulnerabilities, such as attacking someone on the basis of disclosed health conditions, past traumas, personal hardships, or physical appearance.
Antagonizing communities, which could include repeatedly “trolling” subreddits with off-topic posts or undermining the purpose of the community.
Sexualizing someone without their consent, sending unsolicited sexual content, or other unwanted sexualization.
A sustained campaign of unwanted contact, such as following a user across the platform to repeatedly antagonize them, or creating accounts specifically to abuse an individual.
Qualifications & exceptions
The list is not exhaustive ("including, but not limited to").
Content & IP Rights · Context
Harassment policy examples of violations: wishing death, piling on, following users, abusive usernames, inbox flooding
The policy gives example violations: a comment wishing, directly or indirectly, that someone gets cancer and dies; directing others to pile negative comments onto someone else's post; following a user from one community to another to continue a previous argument; contacting a user in a private, unsolicited chat with insults; creating a community dedicated to sexualizing individuals' nonsexual media without consent; creating an account with an abusive username targeting an individual and using it to reply to their comments; and flooding a user's inbox with dozens of greeting or emoji messages to overwhelm them. These are labeled examples of policy violations.
Supporting quotations
A comment wishing, directly or indirectly, that someone gets cancer and dies.
Directing others to pile negative comments onto someone else's post.
Following a user from one community to another to continue a previous argument on unrelated posts.
Contacting a user in a private, unsolicited chat with insults or degrading comments.
Creating a community dedicated to sharing and sexualizing individuals’ nonsexual media without their consent.
Creating an account with an abusive username that targets another individual (e.g., u/IHateUserName) and using it to reply to their comments.
Flooding a user's inbox with dozens of messages containing only a greeting or emoji to overwhelm them.
Qualifications & exceptions
Examples illustrate the policy; the source does not say they are the only violations.
Content & IP Rights · User right or choice
Harassment examples that do not violate it: heated insults, criticism, satire, personal stories, consenting adults
The policy lists examples that do not violate it: calling someone a jerk or idiot in a heated debate, criticizing a public figure's voting record or public statements, a community dedicated to sarcastic commentary about an influencer's social media content, sharing your own story about a negative interaction without directing others to act against the person, and a consensual sexual conversation between adult users in chat or an appropriate community.
Supporting quotations
A comment in a heated debate calling someone a jerk or an idiot.
A post criticizing a public figure’s voting record or public statements.
A community dedicated to sarcastic commentary about an influencer's social media content.
Sharing your own personal story about a negative interaction you had, without directing others to take action against the person involved.
A consensual sexual conversation between adult users in chat or in an appropriate community.
Qualifications & exceptions
These are examples under this harassment policy only; other Reddit policies or community rules may still apply to the same content.
Not stated here
The source does not explain how a single insult becomes a pattern, so where the line sits between the heated-debate example and targeted abuse is not stated.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Violence policy: do not threaten, encourage or glorify violence; give context on violent posts
The violence policy tells users not to threaten, encourage, or glorify violence on Reddit. It says it focuses on credible risks of real-world harm (including to oneself) or speech that genuinely makes others feel unsafe, while leaving space for legitimate discussion. Reddit acknowledges there can be reasons to post violent content (educational, newsworthy, artistic, satire, documentary) and asks that violent-in-nature posts that do not violate the policy come with context so the reason for posting is clear.
Supporting quotations
do not threaten, encourage, or glorify violence on Reddit
This policy focuses on credible risks of real-world harm (including to oneself) or speech that genuinely makes others feel unsafe, while maintaining space for legitimate discussions in various contexts.
ensure you provide context to the viewer so the reason for posting is clear
Qualifications & exceptions
The context request applies to violent-in-nature posts that do not violate the policy; the source does not state a penalty for omitting context.
The page header says "Updated 15 days ago", a relative time with no absolute date.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Violence policy prohibits threats, inciting or encouraging violence, and glorifying violent events
Listed as things that may violate the policy: threatening violence, such as directly or indirectly stating an intent to physically harm or attack an individual, a group or a location; inciting or encouraging violence, including by coded references or memes with a known violent meaning; and glorifying or celebrating violent events, such as praising perpetrators of mass violence, sharing killers' manifestos, or mocking victims of violent tragedies. The list is introduced as things that "may" violate the policy.
Supporting quotations
Threatening violence, such as directly or indirectly stating an intent to physically harm or attack an individual, a group, or a location.
Inciting or encouraging violence, such as calling for others to commit violent acts, including through the use of coded references or memes with a known violent meaning.
Glorifying or celebrating violent events, such as praising perpetrators of mass violence (e.g., mass shooters), sharing killers’ manifestos, or mocking the victims of violent tragedies.
Qualifications & exceptions
The heading says these are things that "may" violate the policy; the source does not state which are always violations.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Terrorist content is listed as a possible violation, with its details on a linked page
The violence policy lists "Terrorist content" as a thing that may violate the policy. The list entry is only a heading linked to a separate article, so this document does not itself say what counts as terrorist content or how Reddit treats it.
Supporting quotations
Terrorist content
Not stated here
The linked article on terrorist content is not supplied in this document, so its definition and rules are unknown here.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Posting graphic or disturbing content purely to disgust or horrify users may violate the violence policy
The policy lists posting graphic or disturbing content purely to disgust or horrify users, such as real-world gore without context or in unrelated communities, or footage filmed by a perpetrator during an attack, as a thing that may violate it.
Supporting quotations
Posting graphic or disturbing content purely to disgust or horrify users, such as sharing real-world gore without context or in unrelated communities, or sharing footage filmed by a perpetrator during an attack.
Qualifications & exceptions
The prohibition is framed around posting "purely" to disgust or horrify; context and community fit are part of the examples given.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Encouraging self-harm or giving or requesting self-harm instructions may violate the violence policy
The policy lists encouraging or glorifying suicide or self-harm. It says discussions about mental health struggles are allowed, but promoting self-harm through imagery or text, or requesting or giving instructions on how to self-harm, is a violation.
Supporting quotations
Encouraging or glorifying suicide or self-harm. Importantly, while discussions about mental health struggles are allowed, it is a violation to promote self harm through imagery or text, or request or give instructions on how to self-harm.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Promoting severe sexual violence and malicious animal abuse for entertainment may violate the violence policy
Two further listed items: promoting real-world sexual violence or sexual activity that involves severe physical injury or risk of death, and depicting or encouraging the malicious abuse or suffering of animals for entertainment.
Supporting quotations
Promoting real-world sexual violence or sexual activity that involves severe physical injury or risk of death.
Depicting or encouraging the malicious abuse or suffering of animals for entertainment.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Non-violating violent content should be labeled NSFW; labeled graphic content with public interest value may be allowed
The policy says content that depicts violence but does not violate the policy should be labeled Not Safe for Work (NSFW). Reddit may also allow appropriately labeled graphic content that has public interest value, such as legitimate news reporting, historical documentation or citizen journalism, provided it is not used to mock victims, celebrate violence, or promote a perpetrator's message or ideology.
Supporting quotations
Content that depicts violence but doesn't violate this policy (as described above) should be labeled Not Safe for Work (“NSFW”).
we may allow appropriately labelled graphic content that has public interest value, such as legitimate news reporting, historical documentation, or citizen journalism, provided it is not used to mock victims, celebrate violence, or promote a perpetrator’s message or ideology
Qualifications & exceptions
The public-interest allowance is permissive ("may allow") and conditioned on appropriate labeling and on not being used to mock victims, celebrate violence or promote a perpetrator's message.
Example violations given: a post with violent imagery that encourages others to act against an individual or group; a community that praises a mass shooter as a hero; threats against protest participants, counter-protesters or law enforcement; a graphic image of a car crash victim with a mocking title; a post giving methods of self-harm; a video showing a person intentionally harming a stray cat; an illustration used to make a death threat against a specific real-world person; and a meme or image meant to celebrate a known killer.
Supporting quotations
A post including violent imagery that encourages others to take action against an individual or a group.
Creating a community that praises a mass shooter as a hero.
Posting threats against protest participants, counter-protesters, or law enforcement agents.
Posting a graphic image of a car crash victim with a title that makes fun of them.
A post that provides instructions on methods of self-harm.
A video showing a person intentionally harming a stray cat.
A post using a seemingly artistic or hand-drawn illustration to make a death threat against a specific real-world person.
A post sharing a meme or image meant to celebrate a known killer.
Qualifications & exceptions
Examples illustrate the policy; the source does not say they are the only violations.
Content & IP Rights · User right or choice
Violence examples that do not violate it: labeled war images, help-seeking, hunting, hyperbole, creative works, satire
Examples given as not violating the policy: a post discussing a war with graphic images correctly labeled NSFW; a user expressing thoughts of self-harm while seeking help in a support community; a picture of a legally hunted animal; a comment saying people who leave the toilet seat up should get shot; a labeled music video or performance art depicting violence in a creative or narrative story without real-world gore, credible threats or incitement; and a satirical political cartoon using metaphorical imagery to criticize a public institution or social issue.
Supporting quotations
A post discussing a war, with graphic images from the event correctly labeled as NSFW.
A user expressing thoughts of self-harm in the context of seeking help in a support community.
A post showing a picture of a legally hunted animal.
people who leave the toilet seat up should get shot
A post sharing a music video or piece of performance art that depicts violence as part of a creative or narrative story, provided it is appropriately labeled and does not contain real-world gore, credible threats, or incitement to violence.
A satirical political cartoon or illustration using metaphorical imagery to criticize a public institution or social issue.
Qualifications & exceptions
These are examples under the violence policy only; other policies or community rules may still apply.
The creative-work example is conditioned on appropriate labeling and on no real-world gore, credible threats or incitement.
Not stated here
The source lists the toilet-seat comment as a non-violation without explaining why; the card does not infer the reason.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Spam policy: repeated or unsolicited actions that harm users, communities or Reddit are never allowed
The spam policy tells users not to use Reddit for repeated or unsolicited mass engagement. It defines spam as repeated or unsolicited actions, automated or manual, that negatively affect users, communities and/or Reddit itself, and says spam is "never allowed". Reddit explains that spammers compromise everyone's use by artificially inflating exposure to unwanted or irrelevant content.
Supporting quotations
Do not use Reddit for repeated or unsolicited mass engagement.
Spam – defined as repeated or unsolicited actions (whether automated or manual) that negatively affect users, communities, and/or Reddit itself – is never allowed.
Qualifications & exceptions
The page header says "Updated 10 days ago", a relative time with no absolute date.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Spam policy lists mass-posting, mass-messaging, karma farming, spam tools, link masking and subscriber inflation
Things that may violate the policy: mass-posting repetitive content for exposure or financial gain; mass-tagging users or sending large amounts of unsolicited chat or private messages; repeatedly posting or sharing old content to rapidly gain karma; using tools (such as bots or generative AI tools) that may break Reddit or facilitate the proliferation of spam; link-masking or redirecting to harmful domains; and using multiple accounts to artificially inflate a subreddit's subscriber count.
Supporting quotations
Mass-posting repetitive content for the purpose of exposure or financial gain.
Mass-tagging other users or sending large amounts of unsolicited chat or private messages.
Repeatedly posting or sharing old content for the purpose of rapidly gaining
Using tools (e.g., bots, generative AI tools) that may break Reddit or facilitate the proliferation of spam.
Link-masking or redirecting to harmful domains.
Leveraging multiple accounts to artificially inflate the subscriber count of a subreddit.
Qualifications & exceptions
The heading says these things "may" violate the policy; the tools item is limited to tools that may break Reddit or facilitate spam, not to bots or generative AI in general.
Content & IP Rights · Context
Spam examples of violations: promo bots, malware messages, off-topic flooding, NSFW in SFW spaces, mass accounts
Example violations: programming a bot that continuously promotes products or services; sending large amounts of unsolicited private messages to expose others to harmful links such as malware or phishing; repeatedly posting unrelated, off-topic or link-farmed content that disrupts conversations; repeatedly sharing not-safe-for-work content in safe-for-work spaces; and automating the creation of multiple Reddit accounts or communities.
Supporting quotations
Programming a bot that continuously promotes specific products or services within a community or across many communities.
Sending large amounts of unsolicited private messages to expose others to harmful links, such as malware, phishing, deceptive pop-ups, etc.
Repeatedly posting unrelated/off-topic/link-farmed content that disrupts conversations within a community.
Repeatedly sharing "not-safe for-work" content in "safe-for-work" spaces.
Automating the creation of multiple Reddit accounts or communities.
Qualifications & exceptions
Examples illustrate the policy; the source does not say they are the only violations.
Content & IP Rights · Procedure
Spam guidance: post authentically where you have an interest, and be thoughtful about linking to your own business
To avoid being labeled a spammer, Reddit says to post authentic content into communities where you have a personal interest. If your contributions consist primarily of links to a business you run, own or otherwise benefit from, you should be thoughtful about the frequency of posting or consider advertising opportunities using Reddit's self-serve platform. This is framed as guidance ("please", "consider") rather than a numeric limit.
Supporting quotations
Post authentic content into communities where you have a personal interest.
If your contributions to Reddit consist primarily of links to a business that you run, own, or otherwise benefit from, please be thoughtful about the frequency of posting, or consider advertising opportunities using our
Not stated here
The source gives no frequency limit for posting links to your own business and does not describe the self-serve advertising platform it links to.
Content & IP Rights · Company practice
Community moderators decide what counts as spam in their communities and may act on it
If you are unsure whether content is spam, Reddit says to check whether the community has specific rules in addition to the guidelines. The note in the policy says community moderators adjudicate what constitutes unwanted or spammy content in their communities and may take action accordingly. You may also contact the community's moderators for clarification.
Supporting quotations
check to see if the community you want to engage with has specific rules in addition to the guidelines above
community moderators adjudicate what constitutes unwanted/spammy content in their communities and may take action accordingly
You may also contact the moderators of the community if you need additional clarifications.
Not stated here
The source does not describe what actions moderators may take or any review of moderator decisions.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Intimate media policy: sharing intimate or sexually explicit media of someone without their permission is prohibited
The page explains that respecting privacy means being mindful of the harm of posting someone's picture or video, especially something shared in private that was never intended to be shared publicly. Rule 3 prohibits sharing intimate or sexually explicit media of a person that was created or posted without their permission.
Supporting quotations
you can cause serious harm when posting something that was shared in private and wasn’t ever intended to be shared in public
Rule 3 prohibits sharing intimate or sexually explicit media of a person created or posted without their permission.
Qualifications & exceptions
The page header says "Updated 3 years ago", a relative time with no absolute date.
Content & IP Rights · Context
Intimate media includes nudity, sexual conduct, AI-generated or faked depictions and salacious images of body parts
Intimate media is defined as a depiction of the person in a state of nudity or engaged in any act of sexual conduct, including depictions that may have been AI-generated or faked. Images or video of intimate parts of a person's body are also prohibited, even if the person is clothed or in public, if contextualized in a salacious manner (for example "creepshots" or "upskirt" imagery).
Supporting quotations
Intimate media include a depiction of the person in a state of nudity or engaged in any act of sexual conduct, including depictions that may have been AI-generated or faked.
Images or video of intimate parts of a person's body, even if the person is clothed or in public, if contextualized in a salacious manner
Qualifications & exceptions
Clothed or public images of intimate body parts are covered only when contextualized in a salacious manner.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
The rule covers leaked, stolen or private images when non-consent is reported, and fake explicit content
The rule applies to leaked, stolen or privately shared images of an individual where the individual, or their representative, reports that they do not consent to the public sharing of the images. It also covers images or video of another person posted specifically to fake explicit content or to solicit "lookalike" pornography, such as deepfakes or "bubble porn".
Supporting quotations
The Rule applies to leaked, stolen or privately-shared images of an individual where the individual, or their representative, reports that they do not consent to the public sharing of the images.
images or video of another person posted for the specific purpose of faking explicit content or soliciting “lookalike” pornography
Qualifications & exceptions
For leaked, stolen or privately shared images, the text ties application to the individual or their representative reporting non-consent.
Not stated here
The source does not say what happens to such images before a report is made.
Content & IP Rights · Context
Intimate media examples that violate the rule: resharing sexts, covert photos, stolen images
Examples that violate the rule: private sexting photos reshared with anyone other than the intended recipient, regardless of intent to humiliate, intimidate or violate privacy; a topless image of someone sunbathing in their garden apparently taken without their awareness; an accidental nip-slip moment of a person in public caught on camera; sharing consensually taken nude shots of a famous model if they indicate they do not want them shared publicly; and offering or soliciting stolen intimate or sexually explicit images of somebody.
Supporting quotations
Private sexting photos reshared with anyone other than the intended recipient, regardless of whether there was an intent to humiliate, intimidate, or to violate the person’s privacy.
Topless image of someone sunbathing in their garden, apparently taken without their awareness.
Accidental nip-slip moment of a person in public caught on camera.
Sharing nude shots of a famous model taken with their consent if they indicate they do not want those images shared publicly.
Offering or soliciting stolen intimate or sexually explicit images of somebody.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
The rule excludes consensual commercial media, fictional AI-generated sexual media and artistic depictions
The page notes that the rule does not apply to media distributed commercially with the consent of those depicted, AI-generated sexual media that depicts fictional people or characters, or artistic depictions such as cartoons and anime. It adds that users should still keep in mind Reddit's rules on respecting the intellectual property of others. The page does not say other Reddit rules do not apply to excluded media.
Supporting quotations
the rule does not apply to media distributed commercially with the consent of those depicted, AI-generated sexual media that depicts fictional people or characters, or artistic depictions (e.g., cartoons, anime, etc.)
although keep in mind our rules regarding respecting the intellectual property of others
Qualifications & exceptions
The exclusions are from this rule only; the intellectual property rules are separate and are not supplied in this document.
Not stated here
Reddit's intellectual property rules referred to here are not supplied in this document.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Minors sexual content policy: sexual or suggestive content or predatory behavior involving minors is prohibited
Reddit prohibits any sexual or suggestive content, and predatory or inappropriate behavior, involving minors (people under 18) or someone who appears to be a minor.
Supporting quotations
Reddit prohibits any sexual or suggestive content, and predatory or inappropriate behavior, involving minors (i.e., people under 18 years old) or someone who appears to be a minor.
Qualifications & exceptions
The prohibition covers minors under 18 and also someone who appears to be a minor.
The page header says "Updated 15 days ago", a relative time with no absolute date.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Sharing, offering or asking for child sexual exploitation content is prohibited, even if self-generated or reshared
The prohibition includes sharing, offering, or asking for child sexual exploitation content, including child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The page defines CSAM as a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor, including the display of a child's nude body part in a sexual way. It says the prohibition applies even if the content is self-generated by a minor, shared with other minors, or reshared to criticize or denounce its existence.
Supporting quotations
This includes sharing, offering, or asking for child sexual exploitation content, including child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
This prohibition applies even if the content is self-generated by a minor, shared with other minors, or reshared to criticize or denounce its existence.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Fictional or fantasy content that sexualizes minors is generally prohibited, with a narrow artistic exception
Reddit generally prohibits fantasy or fictional content (such as stories, deepfakes or photoshopped media) that depicts, encourages or normalizes child sexual exploitation, sexual interest in children, or otherwise sexualizes minors. An exception may be made for genuine artistic expression that does not encourage or normalize the sexualization of children, for example representations from popular movies, TV shows or paintings. Depending on context, sexualization of minors can include depictions of fully clothed minors who are not engaged in explicit sexual acts.
Supporting quotations
We generally prohibit fantasy or fictional content (e.g. stories, deepfakes, photoshopped media) that depicts, encourages, or normalizes child sexual exploitation, sexual interest in children, or otherwise sexualizes minors
an exception may be made for genuine artistic expression that does not encourage or normalize the sexualization of children
Depending on the context, sexualization of minors can also include depictions of minors that are fully clothed and not engaged in explicit sexual acts.
Qualifications & exceptions
The prohibition is stated as "generally"; the artistic exception is stated as something that "may be made".
Content & IP Rights · Context
Examples that violate the policy: sexualizing minors, normalizing pedophilia, soliciting nudes of minors
The page gives a non-exhaustive list of examples that violate the policy: a cartoon depiction of a prepubescent child engaged in a sexual act; a comment sexualizing a non-sexual image or video of a minor; a community sexualizing a celebrity who is, or was in the content depicted, younger than 18; a post encouraging or advocating normalizing paedophilia as a socially acceptable sexual orientation; and soliciting or offering "nudes" of minors, whether the poster is an adult or a minor. If unsure about content involving a minor, the page says not to share it.
Supporting quotations
Here's a non-exhaustive list of examples that violate this policy:
A cartoon depiction of a prepubescent child engaged in a sexual act
A comment sexualizing a non-sexual image or video of a minor
A community sexualizing a celebrity who is younger than 18 y.o., or was younger than 18 y.o. in the content depicted
A post encouraging or advocating to normalize paedophilia as a socially acceptable sexual orientation
Soliciting or offering "nudes" of minors, whether the poster is an adult or a minor
If you are unsure about a piece of content involving a minor, do not share it.
Qualifications & exceptions
The list is explicitly non-exhaustive.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Predatory or inappropriate behavior involving a minor is strictly prohibited, including soliciting images and meeting
The page says any form of predatory or inappropriate behavior involving a minor is strictly prohibited. It may include asking a minor to engage in sexual conversations; asking a minor to produce or share nude or suggestive images of themselves (which it says qualifies as CSAM solicitation); an adult attempting to meet with a minor in real life; and sexual role-play where an adult might assume the role of a minor. Using Reddit to facilitate inappropriate interactions with minors on other platforms, websites or electronic devices is also prohibited.
Supporting quotations
any form of predatory or inappropriate behavior involving a minor is strictly prohibited
asking a minor to produce or share nude or suggestive images of themselves (which qualifies at CSAM solicitation)
Using Reddit to facilitate inappropriate interactions with minors on other platforms, websites or via electronic devices is also prohibited.
Qualifications & exceptions
The listed interactions are introduced with "may include", so they are examples.
Content & IP Rights · Context
Examples of predatory behavior: explicit media to a minor, coercion for nudes, sexual talk, off-platform meetups
A second non-exhaustive list of examples that violate the policy: directly messaging nude or sexually explicit images or videos to a minor; threatening a minor if they do not share nude images; an adult engaging a minor in sexually explicit conversation; an adult requesting an intimate or sexual encounter off platform with a minor; and an exchange between an adult and a minor that may include a combination of flattery, offers of gifts, or requests for personal information or to meet privately online or in real life.
Supporting quotations
Here's a non-exhaustive list of examples that violate this policy:
Direct messaging nude or sexually-explicit images or videos to a minor
Threatening a minor if they don't share nude images
An adult engaging a minor in sexually explicit conversation
An adult requesting an intimate or sexual encounter off platform with a minor
An exchange between an adult and a minor that may include a combination of flattery, offers of gifts, or requests for personal information or to meet privately online or in real life
Qualifications & exceptions
The list is explicitly non-exhaustive; the last example is phrased as an exchange that "may include" a combination of the listed elements.
Content & IP Rights · Company practice
Reddit enforces Rule 4 beyond legal requirements, uses context, and may allow news or prevention discussion
Reddit says it enforces Rule 4 against a range of harmful content and behaviors, that some prohibitions go above and beyond legally defined requirements, and that in some cases it relies on contextual information or signals from the community to determine whether content or behavior is inappropriate. It recognizes child sexual exploitation and related topics may be discussed in the context of news stories, societal concern or preventative education, and says it may allow this discourse as long as it does not violate the letter or spirit of the prohibitions listed above.
Supporting quotations
Some of our prohibitions go above and beyond legally-defined requirements.
in some cases, we do rely on contextual information or signals from the community to determine the inappropriate nature of the content or behaviors
we may allow this discourse to happen as long as it does not violate the letter or spirit of the prohibitions listed above
Qualifications & exceptions
The news, societal concern and preventative education allowance is phrased as "may allow" and is bounded by the letter or spirit of the prohibitions.
Not stated here
The source does not say what "signals from the community" are or how they are used.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Abuse involving minors policy: depicting abuse or severe neglect of minors, or its deadly aftermath, is not allowed
The policy says there is no excuse for the maltreatment of minors, whether physical, emotional or sexual abuse or severe neglect, and that depictions of this type of abuse are not allowed on Reddit. The Rule extends to depictions of the aftermath of abuse resulting in the death or serious injury of a minor.
Supporting quotations
depictions of this type of abuse are not allowed on Reddit
This Rule extends to depictions of the aftermath of abuse resulting in the death or serious injury of a minor.
Qualifications & exceptions
The page header says "Updated 15 days ago", a relative time with no absolute date.
Content & IP Rights · Context
Abuse of minors examples that violate the policy: beatings, cages, humiliation, forced drug use, starvation, restraint
The page lists non-exhaustive examples that violate the policy: a video of a teacher beating a child in class; a minor made to sleep in a cage or in unsanitary conditions; a video depicting bullying or humiliation of a minor or making them perform degrading acts; a video of someone encouraging or forcing a child to use drugs, ingest a dangerous substance or engage in a dangerous challenge; a subreddit, post or comment encouraging or celebrating corporal punishment of children; a post promoting child malnutrition or starvation as punishment; an image or video of a child physically restrained and visibly in distress; and an image of a child with visible bruising or injuries posted without context, or when the context justifies maltreatment.
Supporting quotations
Here's a non-exhaustive list of examples that violate this policy:
A video of a teacher beating a child in class
A depiction of a minor made to sleep in a cage or in unsanitary conditions
A video depicting the bullying or humiliation of a minor or making them perform degrading acts
A video of someone encouraging or forcing a child to use drugs, ingest a dangerous substance or engage in a dangerous challenge
A subreddit, post or comment encouraging or celebrating the corporal punishment of children
A post promoting or encouraging child malnutrition or starvation as a form of punishment
An image or video of a child physically restrained and visibly in distress
An image of a child with visible bruising or physical injuries, posted without context, or when the context justifies maltreatment
Qualifications & exceptions
The list is explicitly non-exhaustive. The injuries example is limited to images posted without context or where the context justifies maltreatment.
Content & IP Rights · User right or choice
The rule does not prohibit survivors or concerned community members discussing maltreatment or seeking help
The page says the Rule does not prohibit conversations about maltreatment in which survivors of abuse or concerned community members are discussing their experience or seeking help.
Supporting quotations
this Rule does not prohibit conversations about maltreatment in which survivors of abuse or concerned community members are discussing their experience or seeking help
Content & IP Rights · Company practice
Newsworthy context is judged case by case; child abuse shown without or with malicious context gets zero tolerance
If content is clearly newsworthy or its context is deemed relevant to the public interest (for example, a teacher denouncing abuse practices normalized at their school), Reddit says it will evaluate whether the Rule applies on a case-by-case basis. As a rule of thumb, if content depicts the abuse of a child without any context, or the context is malicious or insufficient, Reddit says it applies a zero tolerance approach.
Supporting quotations
if the content is clearly newsworthy or the context of its posting is deemed relevant to the public interest (e.g. a teacher denouncing abuse practices normalized at their school), we will evaluate if the Rule applies on a case-by-case basis
if the content depicts the abuse of a child without any context – or the context is malicious or insufficient – we will apply a zero tolerance approach
Not stated here
The source does not define when context is "insufficient" or who decides case by case.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Apps may not reuse removed content, pose as human, misuse credentials, hide promoted posts or send automated outreach
Creating or operating apps that do any of the following may violate the policy: continue to use or display public content deleted by users or removed for Reddit Rules violations; mask as a human or fail to register as an app; use developer credentials for unauthorized purposes; intentionally remove or hide Reddit's promoted posts or sponsored headlines; or use automation for unsolicited outreach (for example unprompted DMs or Chat requests). The register-as-an-app item links to a page on apps and app labels that is not part of this document.
Supporting quotations
Creating or operating apps that:
Continue to use or display public content deleted by users or removed for [Reddit Rules](https://redditinc.com/policies/reddit-rules) violations;
Mask as a human or fail to [register as an app](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/articles/45376380316052-Apps-on-Reddit-and-how-to-get-a-label-for-your-app);
Use developer credentials for unauthorized purposes;
Intentionally remove or hide Reddit’s promoted posts or sponsored headlines;
Use automation for unsolicited outreach (e.g., unprompted DMs or Chat requests).
Not stated here
The linked page on apps on Reddit and how to get a label is not supplied in this document, so how an app registers or is labeled is unknown.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Hate policy: do not attack, incite harm against or discriminate against anyone based on identity or vulnerability
The hate policy tells users not to attack, incite harm, or discriminate against any individual or group based on their identity or vulnerability. Rule 1 of the Reddit Rules says communities and users that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.
Supporting quotations
Do not attack, incite harm, or discriminate against any individual or group based on their identity or vulnerability.
Qualifications & exceptions
The page header says "Updated 15 days ago", a relative time with no absolute date.
Content & IP Rights · Context
The hate policy covers groups attacked for listed traits or any other attributes used to reinforce inequality
The policy protects individuals and groups marginalized or attacked on the basis of listed factors, or any other actual or perceived attributes used to reinforce existing inequality or promote exclusion. The listed factors are race, color, ethnicity, national origin and caste; religion; immigration status; gender, gender identity, sex and sexual orientation; disability; pregnancy; housing status and veteran status; and victims of violent crimes and their families. The wording "any other actual or perceived attributes" means the list is not closed.
Supporting quotations
Individuals and groups marginalized or attacked on the basis of the following factors, or any other actual or perceived attributes used to reinforce existing inequality or promote exclusion:
Race, color, ethnicity, national origin, caste
Religion
Immigration status
Gender, gender identity, sex, sexual orientation
Disability
Pregnancy
Housing status, veteran status
Victims of violent crimes and their families
Qualifications & exceptions
Coverage extends to "any other actual or perceived attributes used to reinforce existing inequality or promote exclusion", beyond the listed factors.
Not stated here
The source does not define which unlisted attributes count as used to reinforce inequality or promote exclusion.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Hateful violent rhetoric, such as calling for violence or wishing death or injury, may violate the hate policy
Listed as examples of violations when targeting others on the basis of identity or vulnerability: hateful violent rhetoric, which could include calling for violence against individuals or groups, wishing for their death or injury, and encouraging others to engage in targeted, violent acts.
Supporting quotations
examples of violations that apply under this policy when targeting others based on their identity or vulnerability as described above
Hateful violent rhetoric, which could include:
Calling for violence against individuals or groups.
Wishing for their death or injury.
Encouraging others to engage in targeted, violent acts.
Qualifications & exceptions
These are "some examples", not an exhaustive list, and apply when the conduct targets others based on identity or vulnerability.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Endorsing hateful ideologies, denying hate-based violence, or dehumanizing a group may violate the hate policy
Listed examples: endorsing or glorifying hateful symbols or ideologies that promote group supremacy; denying or minimizing established hate-based violent events; reducing a group to something non-human, such as comparing them to animals or filth; and calling for a group's exclusion or segregation from political or economic life. The heading says hateful ideologies and denial "may include" these.
Supporting quotations
Hateful ideologies and denial, which may include:
Endorsing or glorifying hateful symbols or ideologies that promote group supremacy.
Denying or minimizing established hate-based violent events.
Reducing a group to something non-human (e.g., comparing them to animals or filth), or calling for their exclusion or segregation from political or economic life.
Qualifications & exceptions
Examples apply when targeting others on the basis of identity or vulnerability.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
A pattern of abuse, site-stalking or coordinated attacks targeting identity or vulnerability may violate the hate policy
Engaging in a pattern of abuse, site-stalking, or coordinating attacks to intimidate an individual or antagonize a community of people, on the basis of their identity or vulnerability, is listed as an example of a violation.
Supporting quotations
Engaging in a pattern of abuse, site-stalking, or coordinating attacks to intimidate an individual or antagonize a community of people, on the basis of their identity or vulnerability.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Alleging inferiority or resharing harmful stereotypes to reinforce prejudice may violate the hate policy
Under hateful tropes and inferiority claims, which the policy says "may include but are not limited to" these items, the examples are alleging physical, moral or mental inferiority, and resharing harmful narratives and stereotypes to reinforce prejudice against an individual or group.
Supporting quotations
Hateful tropes and inferiority claims, which may include but are not limited to:
Alleging physical, moral, or mental inferiority.
Resharing harmful narratives and stereotypes to reinforce prejudice against an individual or group.
Qualifications & exceptions
The list is explicitly non-exhaustive.
Content & IP Rights · Company practice
Reddit weighs context, patterns and content when judging hate reports, including commentary and condemnation
The policy says context is critical. When evaluating a report, Reddit assesses the activity of a community or an individual user, their pattern of behavior, and the content itself. This is meant to distinguish genuine hateful attacks, bad faith "humor" or coded language from content shared for purposes like social or political commentary, educational uses, or condemnation of hate.
Supporting quotations
Context is critical. When evaluating a report, we assess the activity of a community or an individual user, their pattern of behavior, and the content itself.
distinguish genuine hateful attacks, bad faith “humor,” or coded language from content shared for purposes like social or political commentary, educational uses, or condemnation of hate
Not stated here
The source does not say how these factors are weighed or who makes the assessment.
Content & IP Rights · Context
Hate policy examples of violations: attacks on groups, hateful symbols, stereotypes, hateful usernames
Example violations include a comment alleging an ethnic group is disgusting and should not exist; posting a hateful symbol such as a swastika without context; promoting that a religious group controls the media or is entirely terrorists; a meme declaring it sickening that people of color can vote; a community dedicated to mocking people with physical disabilities; replying to someone's post to attack their gender; arguing that raping women should be acceptable and not a crime; stating a specific individual is too stupid to lead a country because of gender or racial identity; and creating an account with a hateful username targeting a protected group.
Supporting quotations
A comment alleging that an ethnic group is disgusting and shouldn't exist.
Posting an image of a hateful symbol (e.g., swastika) without context.
Promoting that a certain religious group controls the media or is entirely composed of terrorists.
A meme declaring that it is sickening that people of color have the right to vote.
A community dedicated to mocking people with physical disabilities.
Directly replying to someone's post to attack their gender.
A comment arguing that raping women should be acceptable and not a crime.
A comment stating that a specific individual is too stupid to lead a country because of their gender or racial identity.
Creating an account with a hateful username that targets a protected group (e.g., u/KillAll[EthnicGroup]).
Qualifications & exceptions
Examples illustrate the policy; the source does not say they are the only violations. The hateful-symbol example is stated "without context", which the context note above says matters.
Content & IP Rights · User right or choice
Hate examples that do not violate it: party insults, news discussion, personal stories, policy criticism
Examples given as not violating the policy: insulting one's political party in a heated debate; reposting a news article to a relevant community to discuss a public official's statement; sharing your own story of workplace discrimination; criticizing a government's migration policy; and sharing an offensive image with a caption clearly indicating an educational, documentary or scientific purpose.
Supporting quotations
A comment in a heated debate insulting one's political party.
Reposting (fka crossposting) a news article to a relevant community to discuss a statement made by a public official.
Sharing your own personal story about experiencing discrimination in the workplace.
A post criticizing a government's policy on migration.
An offensive image shared with a post caption clearly indicating an educational, documentary, or scientific purpose.
Qualifications & exceptions
These are examples under the hate policy only; other policies or community rules may still apply.
Not stated here
The text of any government policy or other document the examples refer to is not supplied in this document, so the card cannot say what such a document contains.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Disruptive behavior policy: do not manipulate votes, evade enforcement or otherwise disrupt communities
The policy tells users not to manipulate votes, evade enforcement, or otherwise disrupt Reddit communities. Reddit says each community is shaped by its own rules (enforced by moderators), community contributions and voting, and that communities and their members are also expected to act in good faith and abide by the sitewide Reddit Rules. Reddit says it prohibits disruptive behaviors that seek to interfere with how Reddit communities operate.
Supporting quotations
Do not manipulate votes, evade enforcement, or otherwise disrupt Reddit communities.
Reddit communities and their members are also expected to act in good faith and abide by our sitewide
We prohibit disruptive behaviors that seek to interfere with how Reddit communities operate.
Qualifications & exceptions
The page header says "Updated 5 months ago", a relative time with no absolute date.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Vote cheating is prohibited: multiple accounts, voting services, automation and coordinated voting
The policy lists vote cheating or manipulation, whether manual, programmatic or otherwise. Examples: creating and using multiple accounts, voting services or any automation to increase or decrease vote counts; engaging in coordinated voting with an organized group of people or bots to target a specific post, a user's posts, content from a domain and the like; and automated means to manipulate karma.
Supporting quotations
Vote cheating or manipulation, whether manual, programmatic, or otherwise. This could include:
Creating and employing multiple accounts, voting services, or any automation to manipulate vote counts by either increasing or decreasing them.
Engaging in coordinated voting with an organized group of people (or bots) to target a specific post, a user's posts, content from a domain, etc.
Automated means to manipulate
Qualifications & exceptions
The heading lists these as things that "may" violate the policy, introduced with "This could include".
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Abuse of reporting channels is prohibited: mass reports on non-violating content, abusive reports, coordination
The policy lists abuse of reporting channels, which could include sending a high volume of reports targeting non-violating content in a specific community or by a specific user; using the report feature to send abusive messages to community moderators or Reddit admins; and encouraging or coordinating other users to abuse reporting channels.
Supporting quotations
Abuse of reporting channels. This could include:
Sending a high volume of reports targeting non-violating content in a specific community or by a specific user.
Using Reddit’s report feature to send abusive messages to community moderators or Reddit admins.
Encouraging or coordinating other users to engage in abuse of Reddit’s reporting channels.
Content & IP Rights · Context
Repeated reports or bans across several communities are listed as ways community disruption could look
Under community disruption, "among other things", the policy says it could look like being repeatedly reported for violating community rules across several communities, being repeatedly reported by members of similar communities for sending unsolicited chat messages, or being banned across several communities dealing with the same topics. The text presents these as how disruption could look; it does not say that a report or ban alone is itself a violation.
Supporting quotations
Community disruption. Among other things, this could look like:
Being repeatedly reported for violating community rules across several communities.
Being repeatedly reported by members of similar communities for sending unsolicited chat messages.
Being banned across several communities dealing with the same topics.
Not stated here
The source does not say how many reports or bans amount to a pattern, or who decides; the text of any community rules referred to is not supplied in this document, so the card cannot say what counts as a rule violation in a given community.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Moderators are barred from encouraging or allowing organized community interference (Moderator Code of Conduct)
A note says the Moderator Code of Conduct also prohibits moderators from encouraging or allowing organized community interference, pointing to Rule 3: Respect Your Neighbors in that code. The Moderator Code of Conduct itself is a separate document that is not part of this joined document.
Supporting quotations
also prohibits moderators from encouraging or allowing organized community interference
Not stated here
The Moderator Code of Conduct and its Rule 3 are not supplied here, so what counts as organized community interference there is unknown.
Content & IP Rights · User right or choice
Disruption examples that do not violate it: asking for advice, downvoting off-topic posts, viewing only
Examples given as not violating the policy: visiting a community you are not a member of to ask for advice or a recommendation; downvoting off-topic content in a community you are part of; and viewing content in a community you were previously banned from, without engaging with the community.
Supporting quotations
Visiting a community you're not a member of to ask for advice or a recommendation.
Downvoting a piece of content that is off topic in a community you are part of.
Viewing content in a community you were previously banned from, without engaging with the community.
Qualifications & exceptions
The banned-community example is limited to viewing without engaging; other policies or community rules may still apply.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Posting someone's personal information or links to it is not allowed and will get you banned
This help-center page answers "No" to whether posting someone's private or personal information is okay: although Reddit is described as open and pro-free speech, it is not okay to post someone's personal information or links to personal information, including links to public Facebook pages and screenshots of Facebook pages with names still legible. It says posting someone's personal information will get you banned, and that screenshots should have personally identifiable information edited out.
Supporting quotations
it is not okay to post someone's personal information or post links to personal information. This includes links to public Facebook pages and screenshots of Facebook pages with the names still legible.
Posting someone's personal information will get you banned. When posting screenshots, be sure to edit out any personally identifiable information to avoid running afoul of this rule.
Qualifications & exceptions
The page header says "Updated 2 years ago", a relative time with no absolute date; this is the help-center page that Rule 3 links to for personal or confidential information.
Not stated here
The source does not define "personal information" beyond the Facebook-page example and "personally identifiable information".
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Public figures can be an exception for professional contact links, but not for harassment or vigilantism
The page says public figures can be an exception to the personal information rule, for example posting professional links to contact a congressman or the CEO of a company. Even then, it says not to post anything inviting harassment, not to harass, and not to cheer on or upvote obvious vigilantism.
Supporting quotations
Public figures can be an exception to this rule, such as posting professional links to contact a congressman or the CEO of a company.
But don't post anything inviting harassment, don't harass, and don't cheer on or upvote obvious vigilantism.
Qualifications & exceptions
The exception is described with professional contact links as its example; the limits on harassment and vigilantism still apply.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Misleading content policy: do not engage in deceptive interactions or share content manipulated to mislead
The policy (titled "Manipulated Content and Misleading Behavior") tells users not to engage in deceptive interactions or share content that has been manipulated to mislead others.
Supporting quotations
Do not engage in deceptive interactions or share content that has been manipulated to mislead others.
Qualifications & exceptions
The page header says "Updated 5 months ago", a relative time with no absolute date.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Manipulating public health, safety or geopolitical narratives, or undermining civic processes, may violate it
Listed as things that may violate the policy: efforts to manipulate information or unduly influence narratives about public health concerns, public safety or geopolitical events; and deliberate attempts to interfere with or undermine the integrity of civic or electoral processes, including misleading claims about the time, place and means of voting or census, voter eligibility requirements or specific groups' ability to vote, and the rules and procedures governing electoral or other civic processes.
Supporting quotations
Efforts to manipulate information or unduly influence narratives pertaining to public health concerns, public safety, or geopolitical events.
Deliberate attempts to interfere with or undermine the integrity of civic or electoral processes, including misleading claims about:
time, place, and means of voting or census;
voter eligibility requirements or specific groups' ability to vote;
rules and procedures governing the electoral or other civic processes.
Qualifications & exceptions
The heading says these things "may" violate the policy; the civic item is limited to deliberate attempts and misleading claims.
Not stated here
The source does not define what counts as "unduly" influencing narratives or how a manipulated narrative is distinguished from opinion; the text of any electoral or civic rules referred to is not supplied in this document, so the card cannot say what those rules require.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
Disguised lookalike websites and altered or fabricated content presented to mislead may violate the policy
Also listed: sharing a website or domain that is deliberately altered or disguised to mimic another, and altered or fabricated content presented to mislead, or falsely attributed to an individual or entity to cause harm.
Supporting quotations
Sharing a website or domain that is deliberately altered or disguised to mimic another.
Altered or fabricated content presented to mislead, or falsely attributed to an individual or entity to cause harm.
Example violations: an organization using multiple, seemingly unconnected accounts across local communities to influence a specific political outcome; an undisclosed, coordinated influence campaign by (but not limited to) foreign actors to sow discord; purposely misstating that voting stations are closed to discourage voting; promoting a video edited to make a well-known person appear to have made statements or taken actions they had not on a topic of public interest; and sharing forged government records or other authoritative documents to mislead others.
Supporting quotations
An organization using multiple, seemingly unconnected accounts across several local communities in order to influence a specific political outcome.
An undisclosed, coordinated influence campaign by (but not limited to) foreign actors to sow discord across communities.
Purposely misstating that voting stations are closed to discourage others from voting.
Promoting a video edited to make it appear like a well-known person made statements and took actions they had not on a topic of public interest.
Sharing forged government records or other authoritative documents to mislead others.
Qualifications & exceptions
Examples illustrate the policy; the source does not say they are the only violations.
Examples that do not violate the policy: criticizing civic or electoral processes and discussing proposed improvements; resharing altered or fabricated content to explicitly call out or condemn content manipulation; and sharing a tagged AI-generated cartoon in a comics community that allows both real and AI art.
Supporting quotations
Criticizing civic or electoral processes and discussing proposed improvements.
Resharing altered or fabricated content to explicitly call out or condemn content manipulation.
Sharing a tagged AI-generated cartoon in a comics community that allows both real and AI art.
Qualifications & exceptions
The AI cartoon example depends on the tag and on the community allowing both real and AI art.
Content & IP Rights · Restriction or exception
AI-generated content is generally allowed, but not if deliberately misleading or passed off as human-made; tag it
Content created or modified with generative AI is generally allowed on Reddit, subject to each community's rules and the Reddit Rules. The policy prohibits sharing AI-generated content that deliberately misleads others about real-life events or the actions of real-life individuals, or that presents itself as human-generated. When posting permissible AI-generated content, users are asked to be transparent and include a tag or other indication that it was generated or modified by AI.
Supporting quotations
Content created or modified using generative AI technologies is generally allowed on Reddit – subject to each community's specific rules and the
this policy prohibits sharing AI-generated content that deliberately misleads others about real-life events or the actions of real-life individuals, or that presents itself as human-generated
be transparent and include a tag (or other form of indication) disclosing that the content was generated or modified by AI to reduce confusion
Qualifications & exceptions
The tagging sentence is phrased as an instruction for permissible AI-generated content; the source does not state a specific penalty for omitting a tag.