Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

321–330 of 407 posts

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

#321
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…

"They'll have to dig themselves out of a pretty deep hole, reputation-wise."

Yet none of these subs are any worse than the New York Times comment section

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

#322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 exact…

> no problem with the police targeting Nazis So what you are saying is, that all the police have to do is label someone a Nazi, and you'll give them a free pass for whatever it is that they do?

No. That's a very uncharitable description of their view.

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

#323
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a panelist out-and-out harassed an attendee... and the organizers did nothing You seem to have misplaced the context which I'm sure was unintentional - the panelist, having been harassed and dogpiled for many years by the racist misogynist attendee, who specifically sat on the front row with many of his fellow harassers to make a point, called him a shithead. That, sir, is why the organisers did nothing - because h…

> The panelist, having been harassed and dogpiled for many years by the racist misogynist attendee ... which is, of course, not true. > sat on the front row with many of his fellow harassers Who also didn't harass her. Honestly, this isn't rocket science. If I make a video calling someone an idiot, asshole, etc. That in no way is harassment. They don't need to see it. It's not directed at then. The same goes for othe…

"... which is, of course, not true."

It is true. Stop lying about this.

All this stuff unfolds in public, the non-stop harassment of people like Anita Sarkeesian by people like that person she called out.

There is no mystery here, no ambiguity about the wretchedness of the behaviors of the guys dogpiling on people like her.

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

#324

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…

Kaepernick doesnt have a job because he won like one game in his last season added to the fact that people want to watch sports for the same reason people do anything in leisure, to escape the troubles of the world(politics). He was a slower R Wilson, a smaller C Newton, and a less accurate D Brees. Marshawn Lynch has never stood for the national anthem. Not once; even before Kaepernick. He still has a job because he…

And Lynch is still relatively well-liked despite this particular action because his public appearances are funny and self-aware (see his commercials), in addition to owning a super bowl ring.

Kaepernick is a whiner.

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

#325
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't we first agree on what constitutes racism and misogyny? It's easy to say that others are and forgetting that most people are to some extent. Also because someone in your view is misguided about race or gender does that mean you should treat them as I am assuming you believe they treat people of other race or gender? Why is it a better world to live in where you ban one view rather than the other when the re…

> Shouldn't we first agree on what constitutes racism and misogyny? I think these are pretty well defined. Racism: Prejudice against others based on race. Misogyny: Prejudice against women. > It's easy to say that others are and forgetting that most people are to some extent. There's a difference between having a normal level of in-group selection bias and realizing it is wrong, and spouting racist/sexist rhetoric. >…

Lots of things are well defined only to completely fail when it comes to being used in a real context. There are many obvious examples and even more less obvious examples.

Trump is a good example of a person who has said some racist things but even more things that were interpreted as racist.

We are all racist even if we don't want to be, we cannot help ourselves the question then becomes how do we let that affect us and how we act on that.

And so if it only takes one example to show someone is racist then we all are.

It's much less well defined once you look at the entirety and doesn't just take a sentence out of its context.

Language is tricky and defining something well does not mean it's easy to put things into these boxes.

You are right there is a difference and to the extent, it easy to identify this racist/sexist rhetorics we should obviously object to it.

But it's not much different when liberals paint all Trump voters racist. Very often do we see comments that were not meant racist suddenly be attacked simply because of the person who said it.

You are not a better person just because you are against racism if you base your judgment of what constitutes a racist or a racist remark on who said it and we shouldn't listen to you more by your own definition.

You can very easily be a Trump voter and not a racist and you can eve be a Trump voter and against racism or misogyny as that exist on both sides. Yet listening to the public debate one should think it only happens on one side.

Two wrongs don't make a right and yet it seems like most liberals (and I count myself amongst the liberal crowd) basically justify the sentiment you seem to be supporting with something along the lines of "well he/she started".

There are (luckily) very few racist in the Hitler sense of racist.

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

#326
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if they are bad are they as bad as Bush starting a war? It's claimed that somehow Trump is the worst of them all. From what you have stated here do you personally think they are worse things than Bush starting a war?

I find it really hard to believe you're arguing in good faith. What is the purpose of a comparison to Bush..? Even if the answer is that Bush was worse, it does not take away at all from how terrible Trump has been. And we're comparing 8 yrs of Bush to not even 1 from Trump, here. Anyway - yes, I do think that conspiring with hostile foreign entities to manipulate voters and undermine American democracy is worse.

Well believe it.

The purpose is to test whether the claim that Trump is somehow worse than everyone else based on the mentioned examples of his bad deeds really holds up to a sanity check.

I think your last sentence much better illustrates who of us are in good faith here though.

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

#327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

That's the slippery slope logical fallacy. You've ignored the possibility that a meaningful middle ground exists.

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

#328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no problem with the police targeting Nazis So what you are saying is, that all the police have to do is label someone a Nazi, and you'll give them a free pass for whatever it is that they do?

No. That's a very uncharitable description of their view.

My point is that he has not recognized the dangers of his viewpoint.

It is dangerous to believe "oh, I don't care what an oppressive government does in order to stop Nazis" because a whole lot of people are being called Nazis these days.

The same exact thing happened during the red scare. It was not JUST the revolutionary communists who were literally trying to overthrow the government that got oppressed. A whole lot of other people who definitely didn't deserve it, got oppressed to.

Human rights exist for everyone for a reason.

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

#329
post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Refusing to provide a free platform for them to publish their thoughts is not in any way, shape, or form equivalent to, or even similar to, the "extermination" committed by Nazis, and desired by their modern adherents.

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

#330
post #13

Similarly, Youtube is demonetizing videos with "bad words". Such as referring to "the naked eye". See here for a deconstruction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlRFoYr-XuY&t=306s This kind of censorship is nice, until it turns into censorship of "things the company dislikes", versus "bad / illegal things." See recent vidcon for an example. Despite rules against harassment, a panelist out-and-out harassed an attendee…

It seems inconceivable that you are as well-versed in the details of this incident as you seem to be but unaware that the situation is entirely different than what you're describing.

I could see someone being ignorant of the truth and believing the very surface-level description you give here, but your subsequent comments reveal a willful ignorance on your part.

Censorship of nasty harassers would have been welcome in that case, and describing that nasty harassers as she did was hardly harassment, no matter how it might give one the vapors.

Post reply on HN