Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by sillysaurus3 » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 4:01 PM UTC

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?

Ah, that's the crux: racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you hate it, you must be correct.

For me personally, the echo chamber on both sides is enough to keep me far away from both /r/politics and /r/The_Donald.

For example, you cannot say anything positive about Trump on /r/politics. Nothing. There was a screenshot showing that there were 231 negative articles posted and zero positive articles. It's literally propaganda, but from the other direction.

Now, you can argue that you should fight the good fight and that it's immoral to say anything positive about him. Sure, I sort of buy that: If Trump was equivalent to nazis, then we should resist that from becoming a reality.

And yet he's not. From what I've studied of history, the climate today is similar-ish to 1920's Germany. But if you examine the details of how the Nazi party seized power, you'll find they held guns up to people's heads in order to get various statesmen to vote a certain way. The German political institutions were captured by popular vote, then by force. And as long as we avoid the latter, the former isn't necessarily an indication that fascism is on the rise.

But it's hard to make that argument in this climate. If you try, you're shouted down or misinterpreted or outright framed. And that's the central issue here: When you become a zealot, you lose the ability to take advantage of the opposition's good ideas. Are you sure it's true that Trump's entire political franchise has had zero good ideas?

I'm worried that in the process of fighting Trump, we'll lose reason and rationality.

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

#142

Post by coffeevradar » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 4:02 PM UTC

mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #118

coffeevradar wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I was responding to a comment that conflated the worst excesses of admittedly terrible communities on Reddit with the whole of the 'modern right.' My goal was to explain the thinking of those who are accusing Reddit of systemic bias against the right. Their assertion is that subreddits advocating violence against right-wing activists are tolerated, while right-wing subreddits are condemned for similar infractions. Whether this is objectively true I do not know. In fact, my interest in politics is minimal and I should probably leave these discussions alone in future. I hope Hacker News does not devolve into another online community overrun with political arguments and petty antagonism.

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

#143

Post by H99189 » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 4:02 PM UTC

goodfight wrote: post #117

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?

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

I think left "leaning" is a bit understated.

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

#144

Post by vidarh » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 4:03 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #121

jackmott wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are supposed to throw fascists from helicopters.

I disagree, I think you can tell them they're wrong and list the reasons why $proposed_ideology is better, but talking down to people and considering murder for believing something is absolutely abhorrent behaviour. FWIW, I hate the left and the right movements in equal strides, the left want me to feel terrible for being born a straight white male in a western post-colonial society, the right want the poor and under…

I agree strongly with your first paragraph, and disagree strongly with your second.

Ironically to me, your second paragraph illustrates why your first paragraph matters: As someone belonging firmly on "the left" your description does not fit me at all, at least not in my view.

The problem, then, when someone wants to go to extremes in treating anyone over their perceived ideology is defining what it means to belong to or support said ideology sufficiently strongly to warrant that extreme action.

And hence I do agree with your last paragraph.

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

#145

Post by lovich » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 4:03 PM UTC

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #61

sandworm101 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> content that isn’t advertising friendly and could be taken down. That is a dangerous road. Today they might be taking down otherwise legal content with which advertisers do not want to be associated. Tomorrow they are being asked to remove content with which advertisers disagree. Suddenly my 1000-word rant on the evils of Microsoft's latest OS is being taken down. Rather than being a free space for discussion, red…

Isn’t this a slippery slope argument?

Is the slippery slope argument a fallacy when companies have shown that pushing their agenda piece by piece is their M.O.?

Reddit has already shown that they had the capability and the will to edit users posts, not just removing them. Reddit and other social sites already uses all sorts of algorithms to move content they want to the top and to bury content they don't want. Companies don't want negative PR about themselves or their products. Companies advertising on Reddit are Reddit's actual customers.

You put those facts together and being afraid of Reddit eventually censoring posts critical of customers doesn't seem like fallacious thinking.

You don't throw a chicken into a cage with a starving tiger and call it a slippery slope to say that the chicken is going to get eaten

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

#146

Post by grandalf » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 4:04 PM UTC

fhood wrote: post #111

grandalf wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ce…

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

Obviously. I'm referring to the general values that led to the US having protections on free speech.

> society has always been self censoring

You are seemingly idealizing the process by which social shaming encourages conformity.

> the internet has thrown a wrench into that by allowing people to escape into pockets of like minded individuals.

So you either have an idealistic view of an ideologically homogeneous society, or you think that the internet making economies of scale possible for non-mainstream beliefs is broadly a bad thing, regardless of what those beliefs are.

> And you might have noticed that hacker news is fairly heavily censored

I have, and in most cases (other than explicit griefing or bullying) I think this is quite harmful to HN. The content discussed on HN is simply not interesting to most people, which is why HN has survived. It's easy to suffer from hindsight bias and determine that since HN has aggressive moderation HN is better that it would otherwise be.

Someone recently did a study of title edits and found that articles typically drop precipitously after the editors meddle with the title. This is typically because the author's title fails to communicate why the article is interesting to HN readers, while the user-submitted title often does (when they differ).

Worse, the study showed that mods actively bury specific discussions from the site. We really don't know what we're missing due to this, but chances are it's political. This very discussion (critical of social media companies) is of high risk for being censored simply because the main reason for HN article burying is that the article triggers comments that are viewed as overly political in nature.

This view (that political discussion is harmful) is dangerous and naive (and dangerously naive) because it assumes that HN readers are incapable of acting both as techies and as citizens simultaneously, and that with political beliefs nobody will ever change his/her mind based on the merits of someone else's argument. I enjoy HN discussions precisely because I learn a lot. What I learn is not linked to the topic, or to the political nature (or lack of it) of the discussion.

> has managed to avoid turning into a cesspool like much of reddit.

I think the biggest cespool in reddit is /r/gifs and similar fluff that is used by spam marketers to get their content viral. Yes there are things about donald and other obscure and idiotic groups that I've found at random now and then when clicking on the random subreddit button, those are easily ignored.

In fact, the only reason a normal reddit user encounters the morons is because /r/gifs (or similar) are among the default subreddits subscribed to automatically for new accounts, casting a wide net but drastically lowering the bar of discussion.

Gifs are not posted to HN because the community has no interest in that rubbish or any of the similar rubbish it attracts. Reddit would not have a problem if it were not so focused on creating a mass market for ad sales rather than just letting people associate with people they wish to associate with and easily block the bad apples or griefers.

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

#147

Post by te_chris » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 4:05 PM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #141

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?

Ah, that's the crux: racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you hate it, you must be correct. For me personally, the echo chamber on both sides is enough to keep me far away from both /r/politics and /r/The_Donald. For example, you cannot say anything positive about Trump on /r/politics. Nothing. There was a screenshot showing that there were 231 negative articles posted and zero positive articles. It's lite…

It's not propaganda if he's actually THAT bad. I'm being deadly serious. He is not a normal candidate and claiming that it's biased because there are lots of true stories about a bad person is a feature of our media, not a bug!

It says more about Trump's fans that they're willing to overlook his egregious failings and attack and undermine quasi-impartial institutions just to point score than it does about bias.

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

#148

Post by jgh » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 4:05 PM UTC

josefresco wrote: post #15

Helmet wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Ah yes, "whataboutism" - it's almost like we're on The_Donald right now!

This whole thread is a dumpster fire of whataboutism and centrist "..but both sides are bad".

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

#149

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 4:06 PM UTC

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?

[deleted]

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

#150

Post by artursapek » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 4:06 PM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #141

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?

Ah, that's the crux: racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you hate it, you must be correct. For me personally, the echo chamber on both sides is enough to keep me far away from both /r/politics and /r/The_Donald. For example, you cannot say anything positive about Trump on /r/politics. Nothing. There was a screenshot showing that there were 231 negative articles posted and zero positive articles. It's lite…

I got banned from T_D for saying that the reason Obama spent more $ on new regulations in his first 100 days than Trump did was because Obama inherited the financial crisis and Trump inherited an 8 year bull market. It was a simple fact that got me perma-banned. Both of the communities are terrible circle jerks.