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

311–320 of 407 posts

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

#311

Post by Mikeb85 »

Pxtl wrote: post #34

They'll have to dig themselves out of a pretty deep hole, reputation-wise. While there are specific subject subreddit with fantastic content, most of the regional subs they carry lots of news and politics have a well-earned reputation for racism and xenophobia, and the more discussion-oriented subs add in misogyny into the mix. Only the subs with obsessively strict moderation like the science subs (or /r/Canada polit…

/r/Canada isn't too bad because that's how Canadians are. Even when we disagree we generally try to be civil.

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

#312

Post by tscs37 »

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.

What if you can't take it down? What if they end up on Tor?

And tbh, this does sound very aggressive and Nazi-like; round up the [group we don't like] and exterminate.

It's quite a hateful philosphy to have.

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

#313

Post by dsfyu404ed »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #257
moojd wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But it is impartial in that you won't be removed for discussion in good faith, though you may be disagreed right to the bottom. Spiteful trolling usually gets down-voted to hell as well (thankfully). A little too often I see hyperbolic vitriol and shitposting persist, and though I don't mind the odd gag, it's not warranted. It clogs the thread as much as anything else. That subreddit is impartial in itself. It's cons…

>you won't be removed for discussion in good faith,

>though you may be disagreed right to the bottom.

Is there a difference?

Both actions basically say "this speech is not worthy of consideration around here". The difference between making it still available to serve as a warning or removing it entirely is not meaningful IMO.

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

#314

Post by lostlogin »

ignoramceisblis wrote: post #303
gadders wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's extremely telling that false statements made against predominantly right-leaning individuals in this thread maintain their prominent hue, whilst true statements correcting those beliefs are fading to a less visible hue.

You know he acknowledged what he said and did and apologised? You can read the leaked emails and read his statements and listen to what he said. What’s false?

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

#315

Post by jtuente »

creaghpatr wrote: post #128
josefresco wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

r/politics is just a name - like the thousands of others on Reddit. The sub reddit is made up of and only exists because of the subscribers / mods wants/wishes. Just because it has a "generic" name, does not mean it needs to be "fair and balanced" /s

However unlike the thousands of others, /r/politics is a default sub, giving it a certain nod of credibility from Reddit the company.

Was. Default subs have been removed and the default is to be shown /r/popular

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

#316

Post by dethswatch »

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.

> then take it down.

Love this idea!

But I get to decide what's permitted and what's not.

We're going to start with art that I don't understand, then off to literature that I don't care for, when all of that filth is cleaned out, it's on to expressions of thought that everyone intuitively knows are wrong, then we progress to purge politics of incompatible policy and incorrect voting patterns.

Ok?

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

#317

Post by hankhill »

stevenwoo wrote: post #282
hankhill wrote: post #274

HN is either filled to the brim with Russian state sponsored trolls, or Silicon Valley really is the most disgusting cesspool of human garbage ever concieved.

There are a lot of people who might be smart in one arena and then open their mouth about some other subject and reveal how not smart they might be in a whole lot of other ways. Recent example #1 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/16/james-dam...

What gets me is the whole culture of arrogance, where they refuse to step back and think before deciding they are absolutely an expert on every possible topic.

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

#319

Post by dingo_bat »

abiox wrote: post #188
dingo_bat wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You actually expect that from a sub called "the donald". You don't expect that kind of bias from a sub called "politics".

it's a reddit sub so i don't have any expectation, but fwiw, "balance" implies neither "unbiased" nor "objective".

> "balance" implies neither "unbiased" nor "objective".

I think it absolutely does.

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

#320

Post by ksk »

s73ver_ wrote: post #297
ksk wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the problem is "who gets to be verified?" Why can't I be verified? The implication was that verified users were special in some way (maybe just in a Sneeches "stars upon thars" way), and so giving it to admitted Nazis and white nationalists was seen as saying they deserved to be special. And then taking it away made them and their supporters feel they weren't special anymore.

Right, its all about how people outside of Twitter perceived the checkmark. Twitter made it worse for themselves, because people are just going to find sexist/racist tweets from verified people and get Twitter to un-verify them via negative clickbait PR.
Post reply on HN