Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Perhaps I can assist: Shaun King calls Jason Whitlock a "coon". He keeps his verified check and account. If that isn't personal, racial abuse and harassment, I'm not sure what is. EDIT: Not being tremendously familiar with this spat, it took me a while to figure out what Milo got banned for. Best I can figure out, it was for calling a Ghostbusters actress "barely literate". Since that's a bit of a weak-tea insult, I…
Reddit is still in turmoil
351–360 of 521 posts
Re: Reddit is still in turmoil
#352I 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…
Both Twitter's and Reddit's problem is that they are applying their rules very selectively. Twitter, for example, ban political trolls and populists, but tolerate terror organizations and their supporters. Like what the actual fuck...
Re: Reddit is still in turmoil
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If there is a lesson in this, it is that online communities which plan to implement anti-harassment policies ought to do so from the beginning, and develop the expectation among the users that such policies exist, and will continue to exist. A few relatively popular programming languages have begun publishing official community code of conduct documents[1][2]. While initially I thought it was a bit overreaching, I…
there is an inherent trade off though. would reddit have ever become so big and popular if it had enforced a strict conduct policy from day 1? many of the early users of reddit were not necessarily the mainstream "good" users that eventually came post-digg. it can be a distraction to focus on that early on when what's most important is user adoption...
But if you don't have a TOS and enforce it, then you're eventually going to get the attention of the nastiest, most vile people on the Internet. And given that almost the whole world is on the Internet now, that's some of the nastiest, most vile people in the world. Once you get their attention, they're going to go out of their way to make your website their new home. If you were a Neo-Nazi, and you were used to being banned from every forum you found as soon as you opened your mouth, and then you found a forum that had no rules and allowed absolute free speech, you'd fall in love right away. So much that you'd go out of your way to advertise it to your Neo-Nazi friends and coördinate a mass migration. Once the nastiest, most vile people on the Internet migrate to your site en masse, they're going to start targeting people for harassment, they're going to use it as a platform to spread hate, and they're going to take the opportunity to recruit from the general population by posting carefully crafted propaganda.
And, yes, they'll drown out the decent people. First, because the vile ones are actively invading your site in droves, while the decent people just stumble on it from random links and maybe friends' recommendations. Second, because the vile people will drive the decent people out. You know the old adage about how a thimble of wine mixed into a barrel of sewage is still sewage, but a thimble of sewage mixed into a barrel of wine is also sewage? It's kind of like that. Once there are enough vile people to make their presence known, they will turn your site into sewage even if they're the minority.
tl;dr: Most people don't need their conduct regulated, but if you don't establish and enforce regulations, your community will be thoroughly overrun by the people who do need their conduct regulated.
Re: Reddit is still in turmoil
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
"""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…
So what's the solution? Because attacking people for beliefs you don't like doesn't exactly make things better. A lot of the people that seem to be trying to attack those they see as facist would be just as bad in the power as those they oppose. Except you know, with different targets.
The problem I see with a heck of a lot of online conversations is that it ridiculously fails this rule. Often times there are some issues on both sides of the coin worth discussing, but it's hard to discuss things rationally when the loudest voices on both sides are acting like spoiled toddlers or often worse. Often times, the extremists dominate the conversation and the resulting discussion is toxic.
Violence is never the solution, but isn't it possible to be anti-fascist (or against any other political movement that more relies on emotionalism instead of rationalism) without being violent? I would think so.
Re: Reddit is still in turmoil
#355Why the hell is Reddit trying to make their own content when the entire point of the site is for the users to create the content? Don't make a Reddit podcast, make Reddit a podcast hosting network. Don't make a Reddit video show, make Reddit a video hosting site. Don't make a Reddit magazine, make Reddit a source for anybody to publish their own magazines. Why does Reddit have writers and editors and creative directo…
> Want to increase quality and revenue? Give a cut of advertising revenue to the mods of successful, high quality subs. I've seen a lot of sites try this, and I'm trying it myself on my own site. However, it can very easily go wrong. If you restrict it to mods (like said here), you incentivise them to only allow topics that advertisers might like (at the expense of the community). Or only topics which can get clicks…
Reddit is struggling for money, but they have an amazing platform to test out ideas on. Out of their millions of users one person should be able to come up with a way to monetize the platform. Google did this with their ads: the most popular ads get rewarded.
If I was a moderator and I was given a list of options to generate revenue for Reddit (and myself or my community) I would have to consider it. Maybe I have a community that reviews widgets and I can link to stores that have the best deals for highly reviewed widgets. It is transparent to the community, gives everyone a good deal, and pays for Reddit.
Re: Reddit is still in turmoil
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think what happens when we have truly anonymous free speech, on places such as Reddit, Twitter, and 4Chan, shows that we are nowhere as civilized as we like to think we are.
Are we more civilized when there is no anonymous free speech, and people are abusive only in semi-private situations?
I have hypothesised that the reason is that without anonymity only
* (trolls with) fake accounts
* politically correct people and people who think they are pc
* and people who don't care about real life reputation anyway
post in any kind of controversial debate.
Normal knowledgeable people doesn't want to lose the dream job because of something they commented on 5 years ago.
Re: Reddit is still in turmoil
#357Re: Reddit is still in turmoil
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a mistaken impression. The problem, I think, is that we haven't figured out new norms and boundaries for online socialization, as we have for other forms of communication and other media. One of the things that makes online communication so potent is that it is not just easy but also near instantaneous with a global reach. But we have been slacking on building the tools to manage the problems inherent…
> Going back to the '90s and even the '80s it was common for, say, usenet newsreaders to have tools built in for ignoring posts from people you wanted to ignore, and the modern tools for such things are barely at that level, if they exist at all, despite the problem being even more difficult to tackle. I was a post-September usenet user, so apparently I never saw the glory days, but what passed for flamewars back the…
Well, until the Meowers came about. That lead to what was quite possibly the biggest flamewar in Internet history, and it involved wholesale invasions of random newsgroups.
Re: Reddit is still in turmoil
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now explain why Facebook has far worse racist garbage than Reddit (at least the parts that mainstream users see without digging for crap) proudly on display to family and friends and the public, Real Name and photos attached.
Lots of people are racist. That is a sufficient explanation. However, I very strongly suspect that no matter what the level of racism on Facebook is, it would be far higher if people were able to post anonymously.
Counterexample HN and arstechnica.com
As I have previously hypothesised a lot of good users (me included) seems to be scared away by real names policies.
Pseudonyms allowed and linked to phone numbers or national ids combined with karma seems like a workable middle ground for me.
Re: Reddit is still in turmoil
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no announcement of the death, but the project was under Wong and the blockchain engineer with him, so issue is moot. You are correct Y Combinator is behind the pledge ( http://www.recode.net/2014/9/30/11631424/reddit-raises-50m-p... ), but it was only a plan. Plans fail.
The project was under Sam Altman [0], lead investor of the raise: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2hwr02/i_am_sam_altma... [0] http://www.redditblog.com/2014/09/fundraising-for-reddit.htm...