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

201–210 of 407 posts

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

#201

Post by josefresco »

Cknight70 wrote: post #122
empath75 wrote: post #79

Reddit is swarming with Russian bots and they still have a whole network of white supremecy and various hate subs, operating both out in the open and ‘quarantined’.

All these companies have been pushing this "Russia did it!" narrative with very little evidence or reason backing their claim. My theory why the whole Russian conspiracy is a thing is because its easier to dehumanize Russia as "the bad guys" rather than face the facts of how many people are opposed to you in your own country. Edit: I'm not in denyal that Russia had nothing to do with the election but I think Russia's…

Except ... it's a thing: http://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org

Dozens more resources that track, analyze and report on Russian trolling / propaganda. It's so easy to find, you must be trolling.

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

#202

Post by maxerickson »

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…

Why do you expect companies ignore the content their ads are shown next to?

The same companies that kept swear words off of basic cable for decades...

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

#203

Post by stevekemp »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #49

Actual abusive content or just abusive content Reddit staff dislike? Some bullying subs have been rightly banned but major ones like /r/cringe /r/srs and /r/cringeanarchy remain.

This is just like the banning of /r/jailbait, /r/fatpeoplehate, etc from the the last time reddit "cleaned house".

Some of the most blatant subs will be banned, or quarantined, and despite repeated calls for action things that are still-bad, but slightly-less-bad, will remain. Until the next purge - including /r/srs, /r/the_donald, and similar.

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

#204

Post by crankylinuxuser »

mozumder wrote: post #95
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…

Is stupid to expect ad-driven media properties to be neutral. Just dumb. Reddit is an ad-supported system. The moment you take advertising, you are now required to maintain editorial control. And that's fine. Advertisers have strict content guidelines, things like: no blood, no violence, no gore, no porn, etc.. Do you think a company like Calvin Klein is going to want to put their fashion ad next to an image of a dea…

Put it a different way:

Its like Usenet. Lots of unrelated and related NG's. Some are very palatable and high content. /r/electronics, /r/arduino , /r/news ; those sorts of things.

I think there'd be room for lists of "advertising acceptability" while still maintaining the previous freedom of speech ideals they claimed.

Something like:

    "Acceptable for all ages"
    "Acceptable for most viewers"
    "NSFW content, porn related"
    "Abhorrent, no adverts unless explicitly request subreddit"
You can find porn companies willing to advert on the NSFW/porn subreddits. Not a terribly big or risque deal.

And then the abhorrent ones (say, /r/watchpeopledie /r/blackpeopletwitter), turn into a users-pay system to keep the subreddit alive. Track the sub and make the users pay their share of advertising.

That way, All groups can stay on reddit. They get their traffic they so desire, and the absolutely horrible groups still can stay, albeit segregated and self-monetized.

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

#205

Post by ksk »

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?

>The subs I've heard about banning were echo chambers dedicated to the idea

How does your speculation or the fact that you simply have heard these things make your argument any persuasive? What is the actual ground reality?

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

#206

Post by abiox »

zurn wrote: post #83
koolba wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody can agree on what "politically neutral" means, it's not a useful criterion. It's pretty easy for a tech platform to be politically neutral. All you need are objective rules for how content "get to the top" and equal opportunity for whatever system is in place to be abused. That last one is the problem though. Regardless of which side is doing it, there's a sense of unfairness felt by the other side when they…

I think the "All you need are objective rules" part is just going to square one. > > Every subreddit listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_Reddit_communiti... . could be argued to be political and protected under "political neutrality". > Do you seriously consider unconsenting upskirt photos of women[1] political speech? Not just, free speech, but specifically "political speech"? No, and I'd kindly as…

> No, and I'd kindly ask you not to attribute such a position to me.

this happens when you're unclear with words or leave a lot of wiggle room. saying "[it] could be argued" and then suggesting you're unhappy with being associated with that position is a bit of a time waster.

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

#207

Post by anon1385 »

Ralfp wrote: post #151
jackmott wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should anyone remain politically neutral no matter what? What if the Nazi party came into power? Impartiality can impart political bias if the facts happen to lean one way or the other, as they will from time to time.

> What if the Nazi party came into power? What people tend to forget is that all totalitarian systems that came to power, have their origins form reactive movements acting to ineffectiveness or oppressiveness of existing systems. NSDAP was formed in response to worsening national situation. Reds and Whites were formed in response to worsening national situation. Italian fascism was response to political turmoil in po…

>what if anti-nazi party came into power

I would hope that describes virtually every post war western government.

And many of them have implemented various levels of 'authoritarian' systems to prevent the (re)rise of Nazis. Ranging from the banning of books in Germany to more mundane things like the British police spending a lot of time and money infiltrating neo-nazi groups and banning them. In the latter case exactly the kind of thing you are worried about happened - the powers granted to the police were also used to target other non-nazi groups like environmental protestors. Despite being very critical of police tactics in the latter cases, I still have no problem with the police targeting Nazis.

Anyway, western governments don't need to raise the spectre of Nazis to gain support for increased police and surveillance powers. They have plenty of more recent things to talk about (from Irish terrorists to ETA to Islamic terrorists). This comment thread is evidence enough for that - there wouldn't have been nearly the same emotional reaction to somebody talking about bombing ISIS.

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

#208

Post by crankylinuxuser »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #173
AliAdams wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Slippery slope' arguments are not inherently invalid.

Please explain. I was under the impression the reason why slippery slope arguments are unacceptable is because events do not necessarily cause more extreme events to occur.

Yeah, I've always found it "curious" (as in, bullshit) that Slippery Slope arguments are invalid, but arguments that invoke the Overton Window are perfectly fine.

They're the same concept. And that concept is also in physics. "Things in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted on by an external force".

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

#209

Post by _fizz_buzz_ »

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 think the problem (e.g. for advertisers) isn't so much that it is one sided, but more about the quality of the content.

3 top post from /r/politics (right now):

* 17 women have accused Donald Trump of sexual misconduct. It’s time to revisit those stories * South Carolina women’s hoops team decline invite to White House * Nobody knows where Trump's leftover inauguration funds went, causing outrage and change in Washington

One sided: yes. Something that is problematic for advertisers: probably not.

On r/the_donald:

* Raise your hand if you're the greatest shitposter of all time! GOD-EMPEROR * MRW I wake up to GEOTUS shitpostsGOD-EMPEROR * Stand, Never Kneel! They Deserve Our Respect #fucktheNFL#StandForOurAnthem

Now try to be impartial. Is that advertiser friendly? Is that quality content?

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

#210

Post by fhood »

grandalf wrote: post #146
fhood wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pe…

If you are talking about the ideal of free speech then call it that. Not the first amendment.

I am idealizing a process in which social shaming encourages conformity. That is the only reason society works, we learn how to interact with other people through this process.

Yes, I think the the internet allows people to isolate themselves from ideas that differ from their own, and that this is a bad thing.

You might be right about HN moderation. I don't know, but I think the mods do a good job. I also don't think the mods have any problem with discussion of political ideals.

I sort of agree with your comments about reddit.

Post reply on HN