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

221–230 of 407 posts

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

#221

Post by beepboopbeep »

tomp wrote: post #195
te_chris wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The purposeful gutting/disorganization of major federal agencies and operations, the discrediting of the white house's statements, the undermining of existing federal law (see: explicitly sabotaging the ACA), then there's, of course, aiding and abetting enemies in order to win an election.

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

#222

Post by moojd »

supercanuck wrote: post #194
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…

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.

Also, one is sub meant for general political discussion and the other is clearly meant to be an echo chamber for one side's ideas. /r/the_donald is awful but at least it doesn't pretend to be impartial.

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

#223

Post by sctb »

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.

This account has a history of uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments, and since you've ignored our requests to stop we've banned the account.

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

#224

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…

I challenge you to find an equivalent thread such as this one:

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/7bldfo/trump_mad...

on /r/the_donald accepting criticism of Donald Trump.

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

#225

Post by ema »

zimpenfish wrote: post #72
rightos wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The spillover is very real, just not on the same site. Which is good - concentrate the hate speech into a single place and then take it down.

How would that help? It's not exactly rocket science to open up yet another reddit clone for the untouchables afterwards.

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

#226

Post by ufo »

YCode wrote: post #25
bitL wrote: post #6

So what are reasonable Reddit alternatives that don't act as outlets of banned subreddits? Once you start banning stuff left and right, it's a slippery slope, making large groups of population feel weird/forcing them to learned hopelessness. It would be better instead to train some ML for content classification, then set user preferences about what triggers them, and then warn users that some submission might disturb…

I wonder if they couldn't institute some scheme where they flag subs as "dirty" or some more politically correct term when those subs contain offensive but legal content. This would allow showing advertisers a checkbox when they post an ad that asks whether they are okay with showing their ad on a dirty sub. Pitch it to advertisers as you'll reach more people for the same cost, but your content may be shown by user p…

They have a "quarantine" system they use for highly offensive subreddits (like gore and violent content). These don't appear on the /r/all aggregate listing and can only be viewed if you associate an email with your account.

But for subreddits that break sitewide rules (doxxing, inciting violence, etc) they just ban the subreddit outright instead of quarantining it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3fx2au/conte...

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

#227

Post by tryingagainbro »

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…

First they are prepping for an IPO and need to clean up image.

Second, is being impartial even possible, short of some super-duper AI that after being programmed by biased programmers cleans itself of the bias?

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

#228

Post by fhood »

tomp wrote: post #195
te_chris wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the major fear is the precedent he sets for divisive politics in the future. He also may cause the US to loose ground to China as far as foreign influence goes, but the first point is what worries me.

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

#229

Post by ThomPete »

beepboopbeep wrote: post #221
tomp wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The purposeful gutting/disorganization of major federal agencies and operations, the discrediting of the white house's statements, the undermining of existing federal law (see: explicitly sabotaging the ACA), then there's, of course, aiding and abetting enemies in order to win an election.

What exactly is it you mean these things show? Sounds mostly like you are complaining about his form than anything he has actually done.

Is it worse than Bush administration who started a war?

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

#230

Post by conanbatt »

enord wrote: post #175
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…

>Ah, that's the crux: racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you hate it, you must be correct. As is required to maintain what I would call a "democracy" with "individual rights". We have to be vehemently intolerant of intolerance and marginalization (in general), and this is more important than free speech. Free speech is an artefact of-, not a requirement for democracy. Tolerance is required, however. Some…

And who defines who is intolerant in this democracy of yours.
Post reply on HN