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

191–200 of 407 posts

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

#191

Post by halflings »

jameskegel wrote: post #131
empath75 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry but if you’re advertising on a platform for hate groups, you’re financially supporting them, and I can choose not to do business with you because of it.

I'm a creator, and your logic impacts me financially, although I don't depend on this money, here's why: Advertisers don't even know my channel exists. The only thing an advertiser knows about my channel is that my viewers tend to watch tech-related videos, and can be associated with other related metadata produced by deductive reasoning alone. When it comes time for XYZBlenderCorp to invest in advertising, they don'…

I would argue that not moderating content is what would make you lose advertising money: There was a huge push back from YouTube ads after it was revealed big advertisers were shown on violent/extremist content, or videos about catastrophes ("Buy Kellogg's cereals!"... 400 killed in ____) ;

YouTube has since improved their detection algorithm (even if it has more false positive, likely) to keep advertisers on the platform. It they didn't do this, the only alternative would be to WHITELIST advertisers, which would mean that nobody would pick you and only the big names would get revenue.

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

#192

Post by mvf0 »

creaghpatr wrote: post #140
scrollaway wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking "what about left-wing subreddits" is whataboutism. Nobody is claiming bannable content shouldn't be banned because it's left-wing (except GP's implication).

crying 'whataboutism' is effectively ceding the argument I'm not sure why this term has been plaguing HN lately.

They learned a 'big word' and they use it to feel smart. It's like the time Peter Griffin learned the phrase 'shallow and pedantic'.

https://youtu.be/yetwdpsiM8Q

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

#193

Post by revmoo »

untog wrote: post #112
Pigo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 user…

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

Shareblue literally pays staffers to post content there en-masse...

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

#194

Post by supercanuck »

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…

The difference between /r/politics and /r/the_donald, is that positive comments about Trump on /r/politics get down voted into oblivion but still are capable of being read and seen, on /r/the_donald, they simply get removed and the user is banned.

To imply that those two are equal, is disingenuous.

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

#195

Post by tomp »

te_chris wrote: post #147
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So... what were the actually bad things that actually happened because of Trump (i.e. because of something he did)? In my view, much like with Brexit, the fearmongering is way exaggerated compared to reality.

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

#196

Post by beager »

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…

> For example, you cannot say anything positive about Trump on /r/politics. Nothing.

Not true. There was positive commentary about Trump's speech in South Korea. I think you just misestimate how often the thing he does is perceived by the general public as bad.

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

#197

Post by ThomPete »

te_chris wrote: post #147
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And yet isn't all you have to show for that his tweets.?

Which of his actions shows that he is that bad.

You don't have to be a Trump supporter to see that you are proving the parents' point.

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

#198

Post by gadders »

lostlogin wrote: post #136
gadders wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In Milos case there is soliciting views of neo nazis and video examples of defending child rapists. Quite apart from not wanting your company associated with that content there is probably a legal need to distance ones self to avoid litigation in some countries.

He made a joke about his own experiences as a young gay man on the Joe Rogan podcast. He has continually distanced himself from the Alt-Right and neo-Nazis. He has also recently married his fiance, who is a person of colour.

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

#200

Post by ksk »

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…

Yeah, Twitter fucked up IMO. They wanted the check mark to mean verification, not endorsement, and ironically after removing the checkmark from people they don't like, its back to square one.
Post reply on HN