Live data from Hacker News

Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

newyorker.com

221–230 of 757 posts

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#221

I detest this smug mentality, that so called trolling is trivial to identify and differentiate from legitimate, but unpopular opinion. I feel strongly about it because it creates opportunity for censors, both in the form of moderators and communities themselves, to stifle debate under the guise of "detoxification." This kind of communal policing is ground zero for the echo chamber phenomenon. We live in a reality whe…

And I detest this smug mentality that this subject is concerning things that are mere differences of opinion, like we're discussing tax policy. That's not the case in the least.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#222
post #150

We tend to think we’re more in control of our behavior than we actually are. That is, our brains are operating from habit a large amount of the time, and the idea of the CEO brain consciously deciding our every action is largely an illusion. This is why emergency exit doors must open outwards. People have died in fires in theaters trying to push on doors that said “Pull”. The crash bar on an emergency exit door is wh…

Almost instant appeal to emotion to justify the correction wave.

Notice the tightening of the 'public safety' aspect of it. Notice it's about finding the most extreme danger and then saying we're unable to control it innately, so it must be moderated. Tada justification.

Impressive.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#223
I just started reading a book that got me thinking about this - Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue [0]

If you can remove just a couple of the worst actors from the internet, does it have an outsized benefit? Are those people defining "acceptable behavior" and by example giving more reasonable people permission to behave that way? Interesting questions regardless of the specifics of the Thiel/Gawker case.

[0 affiliate]: https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Ryan-Holiday/dp/0735217645... [0 non-affiliate]: https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Ryan-Holiday/dp/0735217645

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#224
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that is a perfectly reasonable objective for a site to be a mostly impartial, user-moderated forum, right? I don't consider any view I encounter on reddit to be endorsed by the platform. If people want content moderated with a specific slant, just subscribe to the subreddits that suit your tolerance, there are plenty that are heavily moderated. Personally, I love seeing things that I disagree with on redd…

I think it's extremely patronizing and disingenuous to lump posts calling for the extermination of members of a religious group, or calling for the execution of refuges in with "things I disagree with".

I go on reddit every single day, and I have never seen a post on the front page advocating for the genocide of an entire religious group. I've seen a handful of posts linked from /r/againsthatesubreddits, but the irony is that the only reason those posts made the front page is because they were linked from the meta subreddit.

That being said, for posts of that nature that do reach the front page, I stand by what I said. If it is the policy of reddit to be entirely noninterventionist and simply allow the communities to self moderate, that is completely reasonable, and I don't think any of those views should be interpreted as being encouraged by reddit.

The obvious question given an open platform should be why exactly would a community like that be able to exist successfully within a system that votes content up or down?

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#225

This problem is easy to solve: give users the tools to do their own filtering. But services like to pretend that it's a hard problem because they don't want to actually cede that control to their users. The whole point of controlling the communication networks is to control what and how people say and hear.

I don't think that's so easy or a good enough solution for everyone, but I agree it's a good tool. In particular, I think it would also be more effective if we had better internet accounts, which were more transversal and could be used with more services.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#226
post #46

So we've tried: - Real identities (Facebook comments) - Voting and self moderation (Reddit, HN, etc.) - Strong moderation (Reddit, HN) They all result in toxic comments, trolling, an echo chamber,or worse, a complete lack of participation. There's no real solution to this problem. However, if you create consequences or a cost to commenting you'd eliminate toxic comments and trolling at the cost of less participation…

It is wildly inaccurate to call HN or Reddit “strong moderation” — the tooling alone is abysmally bad, plus Reddit can’t put the “post anything you want as long as it is not literally illegal” genie back in the bottle so easily after a decade.

I don't see the connection between the quality of the tooling and whether or not there's strong moderation. HN is pretty strongly moderated and reddit inherently allows for very strong moderation. Do you think HN is not strictly moderated or that reddit does not allow for strict moderation?

I'll agree that reddit doesn't seem to expose easy to use moderating tools, though.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#227

This problem is easy to solve: give users the tools to do their own filtering. But services like to pretend that it's a hard problem because they don't want to actually cede that control to their users. The whole point of controlling the communication networks is to control what and how people say and hear.

Twitter has keyword filtering at the user level and it's magical.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#228
post #50

Reddit used to be a place where you could post links to anything on the internet (kind of like this place) and comment on it (without signing up with your email). Now it's place more like Facebook with algorithms based on your personal taste, geolocation, forced email, shadow banning, banning of politically incorrect subreddits, endless political posts and "Futurology" and "Uplifting" news articles. Free speech on re…

> Reddit used to be a place where you could post links to anything on the internet (kind of like this place) and comment on it (without signing up with your email). There's no money to be made with that. HackerNews is different cause it's just a funnel and an online play ground for folks at YC. The day they decide that the signal to noise ratio has decreased past their threshold, this place will be gone faster than t…

Actually, there was money to be made with that.

Reddit generates enough to continue being Reddit through the gold program.

What happened was Reddit got sold, and that large amount of money raised expectations about "making money", in particular, equating massive traffic to massive potential dollars.

Reddit would have been just fine, and would have seen few real financial issues had it not been burdened with providing a return for a rather large sale price.

Just because it can be sold, may not mean it should be.

There is an inherent conflict between users goals and how they derive value from a site like Reddit, and the builders who may or may not align with what attracted users in the first place.

It's a difficult problem, and one that Aaron spoke to a few times. The idea of sustainable community discussion was solid, and clearly resonant with a lot of people and probably the broadest demographics around.

Reddit appeals to everyone from teens on up. Kind of amazing.

It's current owners paid a price high enough to remove the sustainable discussion idea from the table, favoring a more monetized model.

That has had ripple effects. Not all good, though some are.

Today, Reddit has factions. The vast majority use Reddit casually, often on mobile. The basic app works, but not well.

There is a much harder core set, a good third or more, and I'm one of those, who just uses the old school browser interface, which works just fine on modern mobile.

This third contains many of the community minded people. There is growing angst over changes and a steady divergence in directions, leaving many who understand Reddit, and it's users well, in an increasingly rough place.

I don't see it ending well.

Frankly, someone is going to do the sustainable discussion thing again, and maybe get it right. Making gazillions won't be in the cards, but a very nice living will be.

Should that happen, whoever does it will own discussion big time.

The strength in users funding user discussion comes from the absence of that inherent conflict that always manifests when money gets too big and expectations fail to align with what users see as the real value.

Maybe people being the customers, in the sense of one another, not so much to deliver ADS, is worth exploring more. It won't be as sexy as something that sells, or that will IPO in a way that sets up founders for life, but it may well be the perfect place to deliver answers to some of the harder questions related to large group discussion dynamics.

I have been experimenting with the idea of not making a bunch of rules that define how shitty people can be to one another.

What is stated is being a good human is no risk. The more shitty someone is, the greater their costs and risks get.

Risks include bans, time outs and such.

Costs include various forms of enforced compliance being required to post.

Remedies for being a good human are basically a return to normal peer status.

In particular, a gradual escalation of cost to contribute long before a time out or ban happens, seems to signal to people. A lot more is recoverable.

I see others modeling these things, demonstrating deescalation, and in general trying to recover things before any admin type action is taken. I also see them mentoring newbies toward the safe positive. Her important as that kind of distributed person to person action does not require tools, and cannot be bought.

This very strongly suggests community norms can be used instead of explicit rules to manage things toward value and away from noise.

Ever notice how alphas looking to start shit have a keen interest in the rules? Of course! They want to know what they can get away with.

Take that away and their behavior does change.

A secondary part of all this involves evaluating risk reward for trolls and others making noise.

I'll not put it here, as my thoughts are incomplete and some work is in process, but I will say indirect means, including tools, automation, filters, rules are all indirect means, and do not address the risk reward inherent in causing grief.

I will also say we can't do much about the low risk inherent in just making an account to chat, but we can definitely impact the reward.

There are more ways to get at this than we see out there right now.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Filters can work after the fact, but they don't prevent a lot of it to start. As for "toxic", the article is referring to things like /r/CoonTown, or brigades like the one that went after Leslie Jones on Twitter a number of years ago. The people behind those already have a platform to speak: The Internet. They're not entitled to space on another platform like Reddit or Twitter, and they're not entitled to force their…

Coon town is obviously offensive, but easily avoided (ie, not a problem). I casually followed the Leslie Jones incident and don’t see the problem. The brigading seemed easily avoided by Jones and was actually amplified by media covering how bad it was. My twitter feed doesn’t show mentions by randos, so Jones should have been able to easily filter out at the client. She may have for all I know. So both your examples…

"Coon town is obviously offensive, but easily avoided (ie, not a problem)."

It is until it starts to leak.

"I casually followed the Leslie Jones incident and don’t see the problem."

I honestly cannot see how one can see the incident, and cannot see a problem with thousands of posters telling an African American woman that she's an ape.

"The brigading seemed easily avoided by Jones"

That is blaming the victim.

"So both your examples seem easily solved by client filters to not force speech in faces."

Except they're not.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#230

Does detoxify mean getting rid of mean speech?

There was a post on /r/The_Donald not long ago calling for shooting all refuges in the US on sight. Do you feel that is just "mean speech"?

It depends on the discussion and I’d need to see the link. While obviously calls for violence are illegal (FBI steps in), there are many possibilities where the discussion could be useful (eg, convincing people to better understand refugees).

Largely I’ve been desensitized to complaints about TD as typically it results in hyperbole (eg, election was a direct threat to people’s lives).

Post reply on HN