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

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

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 407 posts

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

#111

Post by fhood »

grandalf wrote: post #67
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…

Excellent point. Sadly this will likely not happen. Google and Facebook are gradually imposing a highly censored world view. We can’t effectively reason about social media censorship by analogizing it to meatspace. Just as virality mechanisms amplify “good” content, they also change the equilibrium state of whose ideas can spread. Censorship programs work like a squirt of insecticide into a beehive, they kill off som…

First off, the first amendment is specifically with respect to congress, and I don't understand why I have to say this so often.

Second, society has always been self censoring, but the internet has thrown a wrench into that by allowing people to escape into pockets of like minded individuals. And you might have noticed that hacker news is fairly heavily censored, and as a result has managed to avoid turning into a cesspool like much of reddit. I think that reddit is worried about advertising, yes, but I also think they are concerned about a decline in engaged usership.

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

#112

Post by untog »

Pigo wrote: post #31
artursapek wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Look at /r/politics right now, or any day of the week. Good luck finding one article that isn't about how Trump is literally Hitler. Whether you agree with it or not, I don't see how anyone can say it doesn't have an agenda.

If a group of users come together and upvote content they individually agree with, is it "an agenda", or is it "consensus"?

Unless I missed something, there's nothing inherent in /r/politics that requires it to be a dispassionate collection of links that represent all sides of the political spectrum. Don't get me wrong, it's a pit of human misery that I've long since removed from my subreddit list, but it's what users want it to be.

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

#113

Post by aaron-lebo »

jackmott wrote: post #98
daxorid wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The larger point is that TPTB tend to ban groups that want communists thrown from helicopters, but are absolutely fine with groups that want fascists thrown from helicopters. There's a fundamental imbalance in how the standard is applied, and it's clearly ideological.

You are supposed to throw fascists from helicopters.

abstaining from jokes about murdering people is usually a good rule. It is a joke, right?

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

#114

Post by Veelox »

jackmott wrote: post #98
daxorid wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The larger point is that TPTB tend to ban groups that want communists thrown from helicopters, but are absolutely fine with groups that want fascists thrown from helicopters. There's a fundamental imbalance in how the standard is applied, and it's clearly ideological.

You are supposed to throw fascists from helicopters.

I'm not sure if you are serious or joking...

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

#115

Post by randomerr »

foolfoolz wrote: post #103
argv_empty wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subs I've heard about banning were echo chambers dedicated to the idea that "this group of people I don't like ought to be [starved|exiled|thrown from helicopters|raped|enslaved]" and such things. If that makes you think the policy is "right leaning = bad, left leaning = good," that says some pretty nasty things about the modern right, doesn't it?

so /r/politics will be banned?

No, /r/politics_destroy_democrats and /r/politics_destroy_republicans would be

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

#116

Post by gadders »

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…

This is happening all over. Twitter is banning/de-verifying mostly right-wing users, Shopify is stopping carrying stores for right wing people like Milo etc etc.

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

#117

Post by goodfight »

argv_empty wrote: post #42
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…

The subs I've heard about banning were echo chambers dedicated to the idea that "this group of people I don't like ought to be [starved|exiled|thrown from helicopters|raped|enslaved]" and such things. If that makes you think the policy is "right leaning = bad, left leaning = good," that says some pretty nasty things about the modern right, doesn't it?

No, it means that Reddit has a left leaning bias.

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

#118

Post by mrgoldenbrown »

coffeevradar wrote: post #82
argv_empty wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subs I've heard about banning were echo chambers dedicated to the idea that "this group of people I don't like ought to be [starved|exiled|thrown from helicopters|raped|enslaved]" and such things. If that makes you think the policy is "right leaning = bad, left leaning = good," that says some pretty nasty things about the modern right, doesn't it?

There are plenty of left-wing subreddits with equal measures of vitriol. Somehow they avoid earning the same opprobrium that the right-wing ones do. This apparent double standard creates the appearance of bias.

If there are plenty, and you are familiar with them, please name a few. It's not possible for us to "investigate on our own" if we don't know what you are considering "equal measures of vitriol".

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

#119

Post by adekok »

zimpenfish wrote: post #76
adekok wrote: post #13

Similarly, Youtube is demonetizing videos with "bad words". Such as referring to "the naked eye". See here for a deconstruction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlRFoYr-XuY&t=306s This kind of censorship is nice, until it turns into censorship of "things the company dislikes", versus "bad / illegal things." See recent vidcon for an example. Despite rules against harassment, a panelist out-and-out harassed an attendee…

> a panelist out-and-out harassed an attendee... and the organizers did nothing You seem to have misplaced the context which I'm sure was unintentional - the panelist, having been harassed and dogpiled for many years by the racist misogynist attendee, who specifically sat on the front row with many of his fellow harassers to make a point, called him a shithead. That, sir, is why the organisers did nothing - because h…

> The panelist, having been harassed and dogpiled for many years by the racist misogynist attendee

... which is, of course, not true.

> sat on the front row with many of his fellow harassers

Who also didn't harass her.

Honestly, this isn't rocket science.

If I make a video calling someone an idiot, asshole, etc. That in no way is harassment. They don't need to see it. It's not directed at then.

The same goes for other form of communication. Were these people sending harassing messages directly to her? The answer is "maybe once or twice, but there was absolutely no pattern of harassment".

I think you (and her supporters) are misconstruing criticism, and hostile criticism for outright harassment. It's not.

In contrast, there is no question that her behavior violated the rules of vidcon. There is no question that the behavior of the alleged harassers did not violate the rules of vidcon, while they were at vidcon.

> because he is a verifiable shithead

Uh.. is THAT against the rules of vidcon? No?

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

#120

Post by alexanderstears »

ebbv wrote: post #80
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…

Your "right leaning" is another person's hate speech. There's no onus on these privately owned web sites to be your definition (or mine) of "politically neutral." If you don't like them start your own platform or use a different one.

>There's no onus on these privately owned web sites to be your definition (or mine) of "politically neutral."

You're right. However when there are copyright violations on Reddit, they claim it's a platform and they're not responsible for the content on it - ultimately the users are responsible. And then the courts agree and decide that ultimately the violation rests with the user and not with the platform.

However, as they increase the moderation of their platform, they move closer and closer to being responsible for the content. At some point of restriction, they're completely responsible for the content on their platform.

They're welcome to operate the site however they want, but they shouldn't reap the advantages of a public platform while advancing their private interests.

Post reply on HN