61–70 of 77 posts
The article is terribly condescending towards Reddit's founders and moderators. They have created and grown it to be in the top 10 of US websites. The site is still growing very strongly. Yet they're presented as an immature bunch who have no idea what they're doing and need "adult" supervision, e.g. > Those cats can't run anything > in retrospect, one flaw with [Condé Nast]’s hands-off approach was an assumption tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You named three sites. The top 10 is Google, Facebook, Amazon, Youtube, Yahoo, Wikipedia, Ebay, Craigslist, Twitter, and Reddit. I would call three of those (Craigslist, Wikipedia, and Reddit) "unmanaged," although that's a stretch. That's hardly "more likely" than the 7 "managed" sites.
No one will ever understand why yahoo is in the top 10,000 websites. Brute force SEO and bundling i'd imagine.
Reddit is pretty much a case study of upbringing without effective punishment. In real life kids behave because they have skin in the game—if they misbehave, they are not allowed ice cream. On the contrary, if you are banned from reddit, you can simply reset your browser and create a new account. I doubt you can fix reddit with a smarter design, because that won’t change the troublemakers. To fix reddit, you would po…
Reddit has this strange power inversion dynamic where the users think they are entitled to run the site. It's a complete illusion they have for themselves to feel more special. Reddit is a billion dollar company and unless you are in corporate management, you have no say. You can have opinions and attempt to have influence, but you have no flat out rights unless you are a decision maker at the corporation. Reddit is…
The criticism of the aesthetic of the reddit homepage is misguided. By not following current trends in web design, reddit has stronger credibility as a free-for-all where you might find interesting material. If you want content curated by editors who are directed by big money, there are a million other sites for that.
I've never understood the implication that a simple layout necessarily correlates to better content. Is it because sites that don't look modern evoke a sense of nostalgia for the less corporate "old" web? Is it just hipsterism? Clever marketing on Reddit's part? It comes up on HN too, whenever someone complains about the awkward layout, there are worries that somehow making the site look better or perform better will…
One of the main appeals of reddit is that it's a free-for-all, and the current design reflects that. If you're looking for chaos, reddit looks pretty good, and many of us do like some chaos from time to time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Upbrining without punishment definitely is definitely possible and practiced semi widely (google around). Punishment is a pretty bad way to address misbehaviour.
Yeah, says everyone except every reputable psychologist ever, and any parent who hasn't raised an out of control little monster of a child. Negative reinforcement works better than any other form of reinforcement, except when paired with positive reinforcement for desired behaviors, just like innumerable studies and common goddamned sense tell you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could stamp everyone of your posts with a CC-NC license. Since the content is yours - I don't think they can magically wave the CC-NC license on the basis that you uploaded it to their site.
IANAL but if you agreed to their terms and uploaded something then you've relicensed it to them. This is the same as those misguided souls posting copyright notices under their Facebook messages.
Interestingly enough Apple also had their Safari EULA state that you couldn't install it on a PC [1]. Obviously it was never brought to court - but still I'm sure thousands of people violated the EULA.
My take is yes - someone who operates a website/service can blanket content you upload unless you explicitly state otherwise. So here is a hypothetical question - you own the copyright of the material in question. Reddit makes a copy of your reddit post for their daily feed or something - could you send a DMCA removal request? I'm sure you would say no because of the TOS - but don't you own the original copyright?
> This is the same as those misguided souls posting copyright notices under their Facebook messages.
And from what I read basically Facebook has the ability to use public posts/pictures - which makes total sense (posting the copyright notice only makes you look like a fool). If you don't want them to use it - adjust your privacy settings.
Here is an example of a ridiculous TOS [2].
> Permission is granted to freely print, unmodified, up to 200 copies
How do you know how many I printed? Perhaps I scanned copies - would those be considered prints?
[1] http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-ridiculous-eula-clauses-agre...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are three distinct groups who all have power: owners, moderators, users. (We saw the power of moderators when the blacked out the site in protest.) Any of the three, if they unite, can end the site. I've seen all sorts of communities go through the death spams where the owners get annoyed at all the users and wish they would disappear because it would make their job easier. I saw 'pg going in that direction her…
But most places can't afford professional moderation When you see Reddit employees driving around in their own Teslas, the "can't afford" point seems quite moot. (not that I'm bitter—I'm happy for you —but I'm less happy for me as a result. Brains are awful.) The weird Reddit dynamic is volunteers have full control and the volunteers aren't courted by the site very much. All moderators of subreddits with more than X…
Reddit needs a moderation team of hundreds or thousands. There's no way that's affordable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But most places can't afford professional moderation When you see Reddit employees driving around in their own Teslas, the "can't afford" point seems quite moot. (not that I'm bitter—I'm happy for you —but I'm less happy for me as a result. Brains are awful.) The weird Reddit dynamic is volunteers have full control and the volunteers aren't courted by the site very much. All moderators of subreddits with more than X…
If the going wage for reddit employees means they can afford Teslas, then that's the going rate. Reddit needs a moderation team of hundreds or thousands. There's no way that's affordable.
As far as thousands of moderators, you just make rings: ring 0 = Reddit Corporate employees; ring 1 = moderators of high-value subreddits (paid, maybe not full time, but compensated); ring 2 = moderators can elect sub-moderators for helping (maybe paid, maybe an on-boarding process for ring 1); ring 3 = community moderators (no pay, but trusted with simple decisions); ring 4 = on boarding for ring 3; ring 5 = unprivileged users.
The article serves the intended readership well, and I found many of its points interesting, but it feels hollow to not mention that there is more to learn here. I'm left feeling like the take away is that creating a safer environment for advertisers is the same as creating a safer and healthier community but that necessarily excludes a kind of community; one that exists regardless of what Reddit does and one that is largely unserved by the corporate web. Communities that avoid mainstream, are suspicious of money's affect on authenticity. It's unruly, bad behavior too, but there are several ways you can slice that. Shaping it to fit a neutral channel that is friendly to advertisers is only one way.