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

361–370 of 521 posts

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#361

Post by gthtjtkt »

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…

> much of Reddit's problems with its userbase boil down to a failure to manage.

Removed some words to make this statement more accurate.

Reddit itself doesn't manage the communities, and that's a problem because the Thought Police are now doing it for them.

The idea that people should be allowed to create and manage their own communities is nice in theory, but why should Xx_JoeSchmoe123_xX be in control of the largest League of Legends community? Just because he hit the 'Create Subreddit' button before anyone else? That makes no sense, but it's how all of Reddit is run.

Reddit probably thinks "This is great! We've got all these community managers (moderators) working for us and we don't even have to pay them!" But the quality of their moderation is often proportionate to their salary...

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#362

Post by eric_h »

CM30 wrote: post #229
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…

And yeah, you're right about Reddit. Problem is, they're in between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, users want more freedom than on most traditional community sites. There's a certain expectation that communities nowaday are basically the equivalent to a free speech zone in a local park, where near enough anything goes. And because social networks originally were really hands off about what people posted, t…

> they're in between a rock and a hard place.

This is completely OT, but I've always enjoyed the spanish version of that idiom: "entre una espada y la pared" (between a sword and the wall).

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#363

Post by fredfoobar42 »

dudul wrote: post #334
fredfoobar42 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened with Milo is less about him attacking Leslie Jones, and more about his _followers_ attacking Leslie Jones. Milo knows full well that if he identifies someone for his heckling, he'll have thousands of trolls and their sockpuppets do the heavy lifting for him.

I personally don't think people should be accountable for their followers behavior, but let's suppose it is so. Then, should we ban people such as Shanley, Randi Harper and their likes when they "unleash" their followers on some guy? And this is actually different. While Milo did not explicitly call for the attacks, Shanley and Randi routinely do call for a target to be abused, for their companies to be harassed unti…

>I don't support any side, I'm just trying to show that the first comment regarding consistency is indeed accurate, Twitter has none.

No argument here. Twitter's inconsistent, if not outright apathetic about abuse no matter where it comes from. It's been pointed out there's no shortage of harassment and abuse from people on the left on Twitter. Maybe not at the rate and volume of the "alt-right" types, but it doesn't matter. Twitter needs to clean house.

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#364

Post by bobdole1234 »

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…

No, I think the failure is to realize that you might have a huge userbase of assholes, but assholes still have money advertisers want.

If you want to build a tolerant community, you build it. You don't take an existing one and try to put the screws to it until it becomes what you want.

And if you want a diverse and female inclusive culture, you build one, you don't do it by taking an existing group and cracking down the cohesive elements they've developed.

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#365

Post by spaceheeder »

If this is related to the problems at Reddit it is only so tangentially, but my feelings on that site have been very mixed since I deleted my account there. I think that the subreddit structure and making it "a community of communities" showcases both the best and the worst of audience bubbles. At their best, like-minded people share interesting things with each other, build communities, and even form friendships. At their worst, they become echo chambers that are almost as liable to turn on themselves as they are on outsiders.

I've heard people make the case that audience bubbles are bad for society at large, because they narrow down what kinds of conversations people have. But ever since leaving Reddit, I've noticed my own outlook on life improving. I think that audience bubbles cause an individual harm, similar in kind to that reported by people who de-convert from extremist religious or political ideologies.

I wonder how much better off people would be if social networks implemented some kind of "group hug" algorithm that made posts less likely to spread if they were too in-groupy, and made people more likely to receive posts from wider and wider venn diagarams of adjascent audience bubbles the more insular their own posts seemed to be. You wouldn't even have to force people to confront antagonistic views, just make them more likely to see more moderate ones.

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#366

Post by dudul »

fredfoobar42 wrote: post #363
dudul wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally don't think people should be accountable for their followers behavior, but let's suppose it is so. Then, should we ban people such as Shanley, Randi Harper and their likes when they "unleash" their followers on some guy? And this is actually different. While Milo did not explicitly call for the attacks, Shanley and Randi routinely do call for a target to be abused, for their companies to be harassed unti…

>I don't support any side, I'm just trying to show that the first comment regarding consistency is indeed accurate, Twitter has none. No argument here. Twitter's inconsistent, if not outright apathetic about abuse no matter where it comes from. It's been pointed out there's no shortage of harassment and abuse from people on the left on Twitter. Maybe not at the rate and volume of the "alt-right" types, but it doesn't…

The thing is they're not really apathetic. They seem to pick a target once in a while and go overboard with the retaliation. And it seems to be just out of the blue for no specific reason other than the mood of the day.

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#367

Post by fredfoobar42 »

criddell wrote: post #347
scuba7183 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Leslie has told her followers to attack people before too (looking for the tweet)

Hopefully Twitter told her that isn't acceptable. I'm pretty Milo has been asked to cool it before.

Milo was temporary banned, at least three times, and had his verification revoked. You can't say he wasn't warned.

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#368

Post by makomk »

rmc wrote: post #213
im4w1l wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Rust leadership tolerates harassment and threats as long as its against the right wing. One of Rust's top people wants to violently purge the tech community. https://archive.is/BtDaA

"right wing" or "far right wing". Remember we're talking about literal neo-nazis here, not just Conservatives.

No, we're talking about applying the violence historically used against literal fascist marches against people online he's declared to be his enemies, because "the only things fascists respond to is violence". We're talking about an online culture where it doesn't matter if the targets are actually neo-Nazis or conservatives or anything else, because disputing any accusation against them no matter how trivially falsifiable marks you as supporting them. Our political discourse is in a dangerous place and I see no way out anymore.

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#369

Post by Ygg2 »

rmc wrote: post #213
im4w1l wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Rust leadership tolerates harassment and threats as long as its against the right wing. One of Rust's top people wants to violently purge the tech community. https://archive.is/BtDaA

"right wing" or "far right wing". Remember we're talking about literal neo-nazis here, not just Conservatives.

Didn't some states initially started suppressing them using force and censorship, but they still popped up like mushrooms after a rain?

Re: Reddit is still in turmoil

#370

Post by erikpukinskis »

anjc wrote: post #26

It's bizarre that a company seems to be struggling to administer diversity of staff, without being certain of its own medium-term success. There's no point in having your quota of "people of colour", as the article puts it, if the business model is unsustainable and leads to people being fired anyway. Why not focus on creating a successful company first, and then worry about things that carry an administrative and ma…

> There's no point in having your quota of "people of colour", as the article puts it, if the business model is unsustainable and leads to people being fired anyway.

Your assumption is that people of color have nothing to bring to the table; that white people are better suited to helping create sustainable business models. The label I would use for this belief in the absence of reliable evidence is "white supremacy", although I understand that's a difficult word for many to swallow. You can call it "mild white supremacy" or "subconscious white supremacy" if that's a little more palatable. I don't intend it as a slur, although I know it will feel that way to some. I am using the term because I believe it is the most accurate term for describing the belief.

Post reply on HN