Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 757 posts

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#541

Post by kerkeslager »

> Some of the conspiracy theorists left Reddit and reunited on Voat, a site made by and for the users that Reddit sloughs off. (Many social networks have such Bizarro networks, which brand themselves as strongholds of free speech and in practice are often used for hate speech. People banned from Twitter end up on Gab; people banned from Patreon end up on Hatreon.) Other Pizzagaters stayed and regrouped on r/The_Donald, a popular pro-Trump subreddit. Throughout the Presidential campaign, The_Donald was a hive of Trump boosterism. By this time, it had become a hermetic subculture, full of inside jokes and ugly rhetoric. The community’s most frequent commenters, like the man they’d helped propel to the Presidency, were experts at testing boundaries. Within minutes, they started to express their outrage that Pizzagate had been deleted.

This is a critical thing that we as a society need to recognize about censorship and political correctness. When we censor people or ostracize them for saying things we don't like, even when what they say is legitimately awful, these people don't disappear, change their minds, or stop voting. They go elsewhere, become more entrenched in their awful beliefs, and because we've pushed them all together, they become more united. They become stronger. And because they become stronger away from us, we don't notice, and we're blindsided when they flex their political power.

Underlying this mistake are some important truths:

1. People who say hateful things are human beings worth engaging with. No, I don't like reading a lot of what people say. It's easy for me to forget that they are human beings with their own struggles and traumas that cause them to believe the awful things they believe. When we dismiss them as trolls, we're dehumanizing them. Such a society doesn't leave room to be wrong and learn--if you're wrong, you're dismissed--and it dismisses the people who are the most dangerously wrong. It's not our responsibility to educate people, but that's irrelevant to the fact that if we don't educate people no one will. We need to engage people who believe awful things, try to understand what needs cause them to believe those things, and try to address those needs with compassion and courage. Truth is the antidote to hate.

2. Free speech doesn't just matter in a legal context. Free speech is protected in the US constitution because it's important in a free society. If we're going to let the discourse of our society move into privately-owned platforms like Reddit/Facebook/Twitter instead of publicly-owned platforms like street corners where newspapers are sold (or, the rest of the internet) then we have to value free speech on those platforms as well.

Too many people are stuck in this idea that the Trump election was an anomaly--that in November Congress will change and in 2020 we'll have a new president. I see no reason to believe this will happen. We have changed nothing about our behavior and we're hoping the ones who elected Trump to change.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#542

Post by dang »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #444
cpncrunch wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN generally works very well. The echo chamber problem is due to allowing downvotes IMO. In my experience that simply leads to minority viewpoints being downvoted. Instead, downvotes should be removed, and people should be allowed to flag abusive comments.

Well... downvotes are definitely abused. They're not supposed to be used to express disagreement, and they are. All. The. Time. And it stinks to be on the receiving end of that. But I'm not sure that they should be eliminated. The alternative is to leave moderation as the only way to deal with bad (abusive, off-topic, trolling, unintelligible) posts. I'm not sure that having people flag every bad post they think they…

> They're not supposed to be used to express disagreement

That's a common misconception. Downvoting for disagreement has always been ok on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314

I think people have the wrong idea about HN downvotes because they think Reddit rules apply to HN. It's a bit like how in Canada we think we have Miranda rights because we've seen it on American TV.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#543

Post by scubadude »

timcederman wrote: post #162
gdubs wrote: 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…

Actually, it's designed to open outwards because when there's a crush of people, there's no room for the door to open inwards. Also, affordances aren't to support habit or unconscious behavior. Affordances are to imply meaning or how to use something by their design (whether digital or physical).

> Affordances are to imply meaning

That's actually called a signifier. https://ux.stackexchange.com/a/94270

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#545

Post by defined »

white-flame wrote: post #450
mwfunk wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that all of those things are toxic to society in general. Those behaviors just tend to be more muted out in the real world where acting shitty is more likely to have immediate consequences. I can't think of any non-contrived situations where those behaviors aren't equally damaging to social bonds in any situation, whether it's an online community or a government or a family or an organization. They all re…

Yes, you agree that they're "toxic" to communication , which I stated. But I wouldn't say they, for example, reduce "enlightenment"; they're a product of not being "enlightened" (for whatever measure you use). All of these are products of the failings/weaknesses of humanity, not causes of them. Their presence is to be expected and crops up in everybody, not just in some "toxic" subset of people that can be excluded.

This is true, but “toxicity” seems to arise much more frequently in some people than others.

In Robert Sutton’s book, “The No Asshole Rule”, he describes what it takes to be a “certified asshole”:

> A person needs to display a persistent pattern, to have a history of episodes that end with one “target” after another feeling belittled, put down, humiliated, disrespected, oppressed, de-energized, and generally worse about themselves.

Put another way, in the series “Justified”, Raylan Givens opines (paraphrasing here):

> If you come across an asshole in the morning, well, you just met an asshole. If you’re coming across assholes all day long, maybe _you’re_ the asshole.

Assholes at work create a genuinely toxic work environment. People get sick, quit, and even commit suicide.

It can be argued, with some merit, that this differs from the Internet in that the assholes are usually in a position of power to abuse their subordinates, while on the Internet - at least in chat rooms and the like - people can withdraw from hateful environments by just closing the tab on the browser.

That’s not my point, though; I’m asserting that people who show a “persistent pattern” of promoting hatred of particular groups, inciting violence, and convincing people of harmful information through lies, half-truths, and myths, deserve to be labeled as “toxic”, and can be far more dangerous to society than a common or garden corporate asshole, because their messages can - and do - influence millions of people towards antisocial or, at very least, irrational thoughts and activities.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#546

Post by tmuir »

cookiecaper wrote: post #294
bllguo wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being able to distinguish fact from fiction is not a skill that is near universal, and it should be. Seems like a straw man to attack "thought policing" and "indoctrination." We're talking about critical thinking and logical reasoning.

This argument is completely disingenuous. Your average person is capable of critical thinking and logical reasoning -- those who aren't are either wards under the care of another person. Normal people just think logically and critically in reference to local optima, and that's not something that we can or should try to program out of them. That quality is also known as adaptability and it's crucial to successful surv…

I'd like your opinion about this particular subreddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CBTS_Stream/

These 20,000 odd people unequivocally lack the type of critical thinking skills GP is referring to. I find it hard to believe that they are all under professional care. These people are straight out of The DaVinci Code, or National Treasure. They truly believe that they have uncovered a massive conspiracy to over throw the current American government, and they are organizing to stop it. Many subreddits choose a sort of mascot that defines their subredditors. For instance, people who subscribe to the tongue in cheek /r/evilbuildings are "6509 villains plotting", where they post pictures of buildings that have a nefarious apperance, no conspiracy in the comments. /r/CBTS_Stream has "21,333 Operators". As in mercenaries/militiamen. These people are rabid Trump supporters, seem to have a strong fundamentalist Christian bent, and appear to be extremely gullible and susceptible to any sort of theory that involves revenge upon the previous administration. They even have their own prophet, "Q". Everything from occult references, to nazis, to big pharma killing off holistic doctors, to arranging Trumps tweets into an 11x11 grid, and then playing word search to reveal a secret message. These people swear that Donald Trump's televised rallies are chock full of encoded messages and symbolism, both in what Trump is saying, and the clothes/posters of supporters in the background. These people buy toothpaste from Alex Jones, because it doesn't contain flouride. These people believe that all mainstream American history since the American Civil War is a lie created by the perpetrators of this current hoax these people have uncovered. They also believe that Trump has already secretly met with Kim Jong Un, and will soon unveil a world saving peace treaty, and that will "make the libs heads explode".

The truly sad part of this is that a lot of these people are also members of other subreddits dedicated to people who have escaped Mormonism, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or similar groups. So these people have already thrown off the shackles of psychological warfare once. But they believe now that they are "woke", and seem completely beyond talking down.

Good luck explaining to these people that they are being radicalized by Russians, or whoever. Good luck getting any of these people to not believe that any censorship is obvious proof that the sleuths are hot on the case, and that the global elite are silencing them.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#547

Post by tmuir »

jessaustin wrote: post #503
alsetmusic wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All we can do is understand that our own perspective is not the default or de-facto correct one, and that other people are entitled to their own assumptions and unfalsifiable opinions just as we are. They're entitled to their own credibility heuristics and decisions about who is worth trusting. People are free to make their own decisions and conclusions, whether we agree with them or not. For opinions, perhaps. The…

Empirically? One suspects a different adverb would have been more correct in that sentence.

Do you contend that human beings have not empirically measured the spherical, or roughly spherical shape of the Earth?

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#548

Post by nkurz »

tmuir wrote: post #528
floren wrote: post #339

I can't wait for the word "toxic" to drop out of favor. It implies that the person is not just giving a bad opinion, but is in fact fundamentally flawed and dangerous. Arsenic isn't toxic because it had a bad day at work, arsenic is by its nature a deadly poison and you can't change it, only avoid it. The vast majority of people labeled "toxic", though, are just humans with a variety of opinions and beliefs, some you…

I submit to you, a subreddit I've found in the past week that is absolutely horrifying, and I think stands quite counter to the "variety of opinions" model you put forth. This isn't anything visually graphic, but the opinions expressed in this subreddit make me believe that these people are preparing for a violent insurrection, full stop. https://www.reddit.com/r/CBTS_Stream/ CBTS stands for the Calm Before The Storm…

I submit to you, a subreddit I've found in the past week that is absolutely horrifying, and I think stands quite counter to the "variety of opinions" model you put forth.

I'm not familiar with that subreddit, but I think I'm familiar with the mindset you are describing. Nothing in your description seems to set it apart from the "variety of opinions" model the GP proposed. Other than your feeling that these ideas are "beyond the pale"[1] what exactly differentiates this subreddit from being a group of people whose ideas you disagree with?

These people follow an anonymous online poster named "Q" who posts vague, short posts on some other site

I thought the comments by Occams-shaving-cream in this thread was a good take on Q: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/82qpk5/in_case_.... He suggests that Q is essentially a marketing team within Trump's campaign, casting out ideas and seeing what resonates with potential voters. He hypothesizes that it may not have started this way, but given the obvious utility of having such a mechanism, it likely has become such by now.

I don't have an answer, but surely there must be a level of fomenting anger and general mob action that deserves some sort of modulation/regulation.

Maybe, but it seems possible that attempts to censor discussion may paradoxically fan the flames. Given a group of paranoid conspiracy theorists who believe that the "powers that be" want to silence them, "modulation" seems equally likely to make them believe even more fervently that there are powers who do not want certain knowledge to be known. And they're right! The difference would seem to be only that they believe this knowledge is truth, and you believe it is a dangerous lie. Public discussion seems like the best way we have of resolving this dispute. Trying to stamp out an idea like this seems more likely to produce violence than to prevent it.

[1] Did you know that this phrase originally meant "outside the reach of English law": https://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-origi...

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#549

Post by intended »

Clanan wrote: post #531

> “Does free speech mean literally anyone can say anything at any time?” Tidwell continued. “Or is it actually more conducive to the free exchange of ideas if we create a platform where women and people of color can say what they want without thousands of people screaming, ‘Fuck you, light yourself on fire, I know where you live’? This comment, by Reddit's General Counsel, says a lot about their approach. They believ…

Minorities and women are subject to nonstop violent comments.

God help you if you are a moderator and a member of a popular community and known as member of one of those groups.

And its even worse if you are a mod, a minority member, AND a mod of a minority community.

----

The best way to think of social media/reddit is a beautiful cleave sort process.

People form a community, and then they have to deal with attackers or outsiders. Eventually a drama even occurs and people get expelled.

These people who are expelled form their own community and this process continues ad infinitum.

On top of it, some people will independently create subs just to target you, or create subs that inadvertently target you (from the old forum days - nazi forums would actively harass Jewish forums.)

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#550

Post by kerkeslager »

guelo wrote: post #470
floren wrote: post #339

I can't wait for the word "toxic" to drop out of favor. It implies that the person is not just giving a bad opinion, but is in fact fundamentally flawed and dangerous. Arsenic isn't toxic because it had a bad day at work, arsenic is by its nature a deadly poison and you can't change it, only avoid it. The vast majority of people labeled "toxic", though, are just humans with a variety of opinions and beliefs, some you…

Poisoning a conversation is a thing. And if you've participated in online discussions I don't see how you can honestly say it doesn't exist. You're implying that in every thread where a troll shows up to derail the conversation we all have to stop what we're doing and give thoughtful responses to the troll to show them the error of their ways. But then the only possible conversation is debates with trolls. But that g…

> Poisoning a conversation is a thing. And if you've participated in online discussions I don't see how you can honestly say it doesn't exist.

"Poisioning a conversation" is a bad metaphor that conflates two different things which do exist, but need to be dealt with in two different ways:

1. Baiting: trying to say something horrible to anger people for their own entertainment. The proper response to this is simply to ignore it: if you aren't entertaining the baiter gets bored.

2. People saying things they actually believe, even when those things are genuinely terrible. Responding to these people prevents their beliefs from going unchallenged, and is the only way we can possibly hope to change those beliefs.

If it were just group 1, you could just ban those people and that would be fine. But the problem with that is that sometimes people are actually in group 2, and engaging those people and correcting them is part of arriving at shared values in a functioning society. The tendency to accuse people who are genuinely expressing their (awful) opinions of simply baiting so that you can ban them is problematic for open discussion.

> Sometimes you just have to shut the trolls up so you can talk about what you want to talk about.

Contrary to what you're saying, I think it's very possible to have conversations about what you want to talk about while letting these people say what they want: isn't this what comment trees exist for? On Reddit and HN, person A and person B want to have a conversation, person C can say whatever they want, and it doesn't affect the continuity of A and B's conversation as long as A and B respond directly to each other's posts, and not to C's posts. Every platform I know of supports private messages.

Underlying what you're saying is an assumption I'd like you to reconsider: why is it that you think that a public conversation in a forum where anyone can respond should only be about what you want it to be about?

Post reply on HN