Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reddit is still in turmoil

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 521 posts

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#291

Post by CM30 »

MustardTiger wrote: post #272
CM30 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter's problem isn't quite the same as Reddit's. It's because the site is incredibly inconsistent with its moderation. If you run a community, you need consistency. Members need to know where the boundaries are in regards to how you can act and what is/isn't acceptable. Twitter doesn't really do this well. If you agree with the staff political stances, you can basically get away with anything. If you're popular en…

>Twitter's problem isn't quite the same as Reddit's. It's because the site is incredibly inconsistent with its moderation. That is the same. Both are absolutely terrible at consistency. They both have very clear and obvious "protected" groups who can violate the rules with impunity.

True. Some like Shit Reddit Says can get away with open brigading against other subreddits they don't like. There are cases where a post has a few hundred votes, gets linked there and ends up with a score in the minus hundreds range.

And a few other subs seem like doxxing people they disagree with, usually with the depressing common assumption that there's 'no bad actions, only targets'.

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#292

Post by skj »

CM30 wrote: post #227
twblalock wrote: post #6

I think much of Reddit's problems with its userbase boil down to an early failure to manage expectations. It's pretty clear that the Reddit corporation doesn't want Reddit to be an anything-goes, absolute free speech zone with no moderation or anti-harassment policies -- but that's what the site actually was for many years. Now, when the company cracks down, users think their freedoms are being curtailed. The mistake…

Twitter's problem isn't quite the same as Reddit's. It's because the site is incredibly inconsistent with its moderation. If you run a community, you need consistency. Members need to know where the boundaries are in regards to how you can act and what is/isn't acceptable. Twitter doesn't really do this well. If you agree with the staff political stances, you can basically get away with anything. If you're popular en…

If you ask us to compare between two examples, you are required to provide two actual examples instead of having us just imagine a scenario that fits your claim.

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#293

Post by forgottenpass »

Quequau wrote: post #242
Fej wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just that the site was that way, a free-speech zone, for many years. It was their official policy. They were quite pretentious about it as well, leading the reddit community to believe that this would be the permanent policy. To be honest, that is still mostly how it is; the admins only ban a subreddit when it generates a critical mass of bad press. They don't want to drive away their users. They know how Di…

I think something really important that doesn't get discussed very often when "free speech" comes up is that there really are categories of speech which most reasonable people expect and perhaps even prefer would not be 'protected' (or in the context of Reddit, permitted and perhaps celebrated). More importantly there are categories of speech which are not put forward in good faith but are instead intended to do dama…

I think something really important that doesn't get discussed very often when "free speech" comes up is that there really are categories of speech which most reasonable people expect and perhaps even prefer would not be 'protected'

In a sense it always comes up. Without sticking my neck out to say what reddit should or shouldn't allow, I simply want to point out that principled positions only count when they're uncomfortable to uphold. We wouldn't be having a conversation about free speech in the first place unless the conversation has already turned to the topic of sweeping away uncomfortable speech.

If someone wanted to make a convincing argument about speech which should be 'unprotected' there has to be a conflicting principle, or it's just lip service to the idea of "free speech" (because it's generally recognized as virtuous and they don't want to be seen as opposing it). "Fighting words" are unprotected in so far as they represent incitement to an immediate breach of the peace. Other principles raised to carve out exceptions to free speech should be similar in the obviousness that it's categorically not about suppressing ideas.

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#294

Post by criddell »

CM30 wrote: post #227
twblalock wrote: post #6

I think much of Reddit's problems with its userbase boil down to an early failure to manage expectations. It's pretty clear that the Reddit corporation doesn't want Reddit to be an anything-goes, absolute free speech zone with no moderation or anti-harassment policies -- but that's what the site actually was for many years. Now, when the company cracks down, users think their freedoms are being curtailed. The mistake…

Twitter's problem isn't quite the same as Reddit's. It's because the site is incredibly inconsistent with its moderation. If you run a community, you need consistency. Members need to know where the boundaries are in regards to how you can act and what is/isn't acceptable. Twitter doesn't really do this well. If you agree with the staff political stances, you can basically get away with anything. If you're popular en…

> If you run a community, you need consistency.

I agree with this. Reddit as a community is a little like Los Angeles is a city. It's really a community of communities. Some are incredibly well run, others are not.

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#295

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #252
jules wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it goes in practice. The fact that the people in that twitter thread endorse antifa shows that they are either ignorant of what antifa actually is (as opposed to what it claims to be), or they endorse an organisation that is more fascist than the fascists it purports to fight.

“The anti-fascists are the real fascists!” is a tired argument and it has been for more than 70 years, ever since that was said in actual Nazi Germany and the fascists proceeded to win.

Violence is never an appropriate response to speech. I don't care what the Nazis are saying, if you use violence to silence them, you are the problem, and I will support their free speech rights. Free speech is not simply for ideas you like, it's for ideas you hate, too.

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#296

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #285
jules wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the so called anti-fascists use violence against peaceful protesters and against the police who try to stop them, then yes.

"""If fascism could be defeated in debate, I assure you that it would never have happened, neither in Germany, nor in Italy, nor anywhere else. Those who recognised its threat at the time and tried to stop it were, I assume, also called “a mob”. Regrettably too many “fair-minded” people didn’t either try, or want to stop it, and, as I witnessed myself during the war, accommodated themselves when it took over … People…

That's misleading. In neither Italy nor Germany did the fascists seize power without using violence. In Germany, the SA was used by the Nazis to suppress their opponents in elections and intimidate the powers that be. Even then, they only won like 40% of the vote and had to manufacture a crisis to seize full control. Similar in Italy.

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#297

Post by hugh4 »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #252
jules wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it goes in practice. The fact that the people in that twitter thread endorse antifa shows that they are either ignorant of what antifa actually is (as opposed to what it claims to be), or they endorse an organisation that is more fascist than the fascists it purports to fight.

“The anti-fascists are the real fascists!” is a tired argument and it has been for more than 70 years, ever since that was said in actual Nazi Germany and the fascists proceeded to win.

If the anti-fascists (who were, at the time, literal Communists) had won in Germany, would history have wound up any better? Or just as bad?

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#298

Post by hugh4 »

lumberjack wrote: post #218
twblalock wrote: post #6

I think much of Reddit's problems with its userbase boil down to an early failure to manage expectations. It's pretty clear that the Reddit corporation doesn't want Reddit to be an anything-goes, absolute free speech zone with no moderation or anti-harassment policies -- but that's what the site actually was for many years. Now, when the company cracks down, users think their freedoms are being curtailed. The mistake…

>It's pretty clear that the Reddit corporation doesn't want Reddit to be an anything-goes, absolute free speech zone with no moderation or anti-harassment policies I think lots of webmasters actually believed in that but we all now realise that that simply doesn't work. I won't mention examples of lawless online communities but I'm sure all of us know of a few. In my experience they are all disasters.

Disasters?

I'd say the chans are the only interesting and creative places on the internet.

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#299

Post by CM30 »

Animats wrote: post #152
cerrelio wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see why they want to create their own curated content. A friend of mine has created and run several user-generated content sites and he said: "user generated content is worthless; largely racism and porn." It's driven by the lowest common denominator. As long as content is hosted on company-controlled servers where ad revenue is the model for survival, you're going to see slow declines and eventual busts like Digg.…

How much does it really cost to run a forum system? Even a big one? Look at 4chan.

Depends on a lot of factors.

Is the content mostly text or does it have a lot of images/videos/sound files? If the former, it's a lot cheaper to run than the latter (hence why a lot of big community sites are so 'vanilla').

What's the audience/topic? Some fields are easier to monetise than others. People in tech are more likely to use Adblockers, but they're also more likely to try out new methods of monetisation (like say, a Patreon type system or something involving Bitcoin).

How much do you know about running a server? Much cheaper to run a big site on an unmanaged service than a managed one.

How many people post vs how many people read. More posting in less time = more server resources and more service costs.

What script do you use? Something lightweight and lacking in a lot of features is going to hold up for longer on a shared server than something like XenForo or IPB or VBulletin.

So it can be really cheap if you're after a simple forum with an audience that doesn't block ads and might be willing to spend a lot on subscriptions or donations. It can be really expensive if you're offering a live video chat microblogging/livestreaming service.

I've seen large forums with hundreds of thousands of posts on $5 a month hosting, and sites with about 50 users needing a dedicated server.

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#300

Post by [deleted] »

davidsong wrote: post #273
munificent wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Compounding that problem, the fact that the site was unregulated for so long caused it to attract the kind of people who need to be regulated the most. Is there any evidence that reddit has a greater fraction of asshats than the general population at large?

You don't need to be a horrible person to make insensitive posts, it's a role played depending on environment and audience. I'm sure the 4channers among us aren't famous for trollish funposts on Facebook and LinkedIn.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN