Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

Post by Pigo » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 3:04 PM UTC

artursapek wrote: post #20

malvosenior wrote: post #8

I would love to see a statement from Reddit/Twitter... explicitly stating that they will remain politically neutral. There’s certainly content that should legally be taken down, there’s probably content that isn’t advertising friendly and could be taken down. It seems like these companies are being very slanted in their evaluation of the latter category. Basically right leaning = bad, left leaning = good. All I want…

It's kind of an inside joke on reddit now how left-leaning /r/politics is. It frames itself as a generic political news page but it's so biased it's incredible.

Post by scrollaway » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 3:05 PM UTC

Helmet wrote: post #10

godman_8 wrote: post #4

Yah, except they're hosting /r/The_Donald which has been confirmed to violate Reddit rules. Just like Twitter they cherry pick for $$$.

What about r/The_Donald violates the rules other than going against your political preferences? There are left-wing sub-reddits that openly call for armed revolution, violence against the "bourgeoisie" and the police, destruction of property, etc; but I'm sure they're OK to exist, right?

Post by MBCook » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 3:05 PM UTC

chadgeidel wrote: post #7

infodroid wrote: post #5

Someone needs to put a stop to this bad meme... On social media, advertising is not an endorsement of the content. This might be the case for traditional media, but social media is different. Advertisers and platforms need to recognize the difference, to accept the lack of control over user-generated content as a feature, and to push back on unfair criticism. But perhaps their real goal is increasing their control ov…

I don't see why it's not an endorsement. Money changed hands. The content of reddit's many forums is well known. No one is blind to this. "I didn't give the killer money for a knife, I bought him lunch!"

Post by topgunsarg » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 3:06 PM UTC

rightos wrote: post #12

flunhat wrote: post #3

And from what I understand, it's been quite effective, too [1]. It seems that removing abusive communities basically reduces the amount of abusive content overall, because there's one less community where that content is acceptable to share. So not as much of a "spillover effect" as feared, which is good news. [1] http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf

That study if I recall correctly completely misses the spillover to other websites, considering only reddit itself - but bans on sites like reddit and Twitter have lead to the rise of sites like Gab, 8chan and Voat in recent years. The spillover is very real, just not on the same site.

Post by eegilbert » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 3:06 PM UTC

rightos wrote: post #12

flunhat wrote: post #3

And from what I understand, it's been quite effective, too [1]. It seems that removing abusive communities basically reduces the amount of abusive content overall, because there's one less community where that content is acceptable to share. So not as much of a "spillover effect" as feared, which is good news. [1] http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf

That study if I recall correctly completely misses the spillover to other websites, considering only reddit itself - but bans on sites like reddit and Twitter have lead to the rise of sites like Gab, 8chan and Voat in recent years. The spillover is very real, just not on the same site.