Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet • Hacker News Board

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#551

Post by dieterrams » Tue, Mar 13, 2018, 5:54 AM UTC

Infernal wrote: post #29

dieterrams wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to get everyone to not be bothered by trolls is a massive and neverending undertaking.

But policing the expression of wide (and fluidly defined) swaths of thought that some believe to be "toxic" isn't?

I just don’t think saying “people shouldn’t let themselves be bothered” is at all a viable solution. Automated troll detection is clearly a hard problem, but I’m not convinced it’s unsolveable. Whereas getting people to not be bothered is, unless people start living forever and have no offspring, by its very nature a commitment without end.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#552

Post by john_moscow » Tue, Mar 13, 2018, 5:57 AM UTC

castis wrote: post #15

As long as there are no consequences to being a dick to people over the internet, "toxic internet" is here to stay.

The only consequence you should get for being a dick should be people realizing it and not taking you seriously. IMO, that's one of the things you shouldn't really outsource, unless you want someone else to pretty much decide everything for you.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#553

Post by intended » Tue, Mar 13, 2018, 6:11 AM UTC

skrowl wrote: post #44

digitalantfarm wrote: post #25

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 only used free speech as a draw until it got enough user to make money by pushing agendas. It's been agenda-pushing high censorship for years now, but some people just started noticing around the 2016 US election where they didn't even try to hide their obvious bias anymore. In an age where any opposing opinions are consider "toxic" by some, I don't think trying to "detoxify" should be a goal. If you don't lik…

People attribute to malice what is best attributed to entropy

The old reddit, allowed actual pedophiles to describe their issues in ask reddit threads.

Theres even a dark ama where a relation which would make people ill, was discussed.

----

Unfortunately what social media is exposing, is weaknesses in how human beings agglomerate.

If someone makes a forum for dead baby jokes - distasteful to many, but not harmful in private - it eventually attracts people who think that dead baby jokes are the norm.

Or in worse terms - a sub for making offcolor jokes soon gets overrun by people who think off color jokes are not a risque deviation from normal behavior, but is actually normal behavior.

----

On top of this, the internet and social communities are extremely low on contextual information - which is critical for most people to understand a conversation in real life.

This means that the only way someone can know what you mean when you are being vague, is if you make an constant effort for tonal and idea accuracy in your comments.

Obviously this is challenging, leading to a cascade of misunderstandings, which only serve to polarize groups more.

----

Theres a lot of research being done on how people behave online, and its just a grim picture.

How Community Feedback Shapes User Behavior (https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1429)

The spreading of misinformation online( http://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/554.full)

The effect of the ban on hate subs on reddit (http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf)

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#554

Post by propman » Tue, Mar 13, 2018, 6:13 AM UTC

losteric wrote: post #71

_m8fo wrote: 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…

We really just need better public education, as well as clearer separation between information and entertainment. Facebook/Reddit/Twitter/etc promote a regression towards the mean understanding... viral content reflects and amplifies the "average user's" sentiment and values. Acceptable for entertainment, but inherently prone to misinformation, propaganda, and demagoguery. Education requires valuing subject matter ex…

The clear separation between information and entertainment is BRILLIANTLY said. Seems straightforward but it's really important. Why is Twitter, a cesspool of memes, rap, sports, and kardashians mostly used by kids under 25 the primary means of breaking stories? Why is so much news on there? Anytime profitability, entertainment, short attention spans and news all get entwined, the resulting outcome is clear.

Facebook, Reddit, twitter, Snapchat have all started for entertainment and switched to catchbyte reaction/outrage culture news and normal news has turned into a mess as well.

I say regulations wiping trending news feed off Facebook, twitter and Snapchat is a start. Perhaps funding to any group that meets set in stone criteria regardless of political affiliation gets some federal funding to make up for the cost of making real journalism. That journalism must be fact checked and we hold them accountable.

People are desensitized to everything now and when shocking news is made every 15 minutes and the world is so connected we become numb to so much and that is incredibly dangerous

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#555

Post by tmuir » Tue, Mar 13, 2018, 6:14 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #539

tmuir wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> the opinions expressed in this subreddit make me believe that these people are preparing for a violent insurrection, full stop. What makes you think so? I've looked at it (admittedly, didn't spend too much time) and it looks pretty standard fare for a subreddit - or any other forum like it. It's slogan is "BE LOUD. BE HEARD.". People that are preparing violent insurrection don't want to be loud and heard. They want…

I mean preparing for violent insurrection that they believe is about to be started by someone else. I don't think they are planning to start it. So many of the posts are alluding to events that are imminent. My fear is not that the logical progression of this group is a pre planned and executed terror attack of some kind, but that they are being radicalized, and are not far off from a mob of Manchurian candidates. Perhaps thats a very loaded and hyperbolic phrase, but consider this: imagine a hypothetical situation where Donald Trump resigns, or is impeached, or for whatever reason leaves office on a day other than Jan 20, 2021 or Jan 20, 2025. The mass demonstrations that would inevitably ensue would be powder kegs. I don't think its hyperbole to say that those protests could quickly devolve into mob violence on a large scale. This subreddit is essentially prepping people for that day, and like a doomsday cult, insinuating that the day is coming very soon.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#556

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Mar 13, 2018, 6:32 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #532

dalbasal wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an insightful analogy. To stretch it a bit, I'd say there's an important difference between a fire door and reddit. The fire door knows its job is to prevent people burning to death. Reddit... does it know it's job is to prevent outraged reaction? I think this is one of the things that made facebook so problematic on politics, it can't tell the the good likes, comments and shares from the bad ones. I'm not su…

> But, I think unrestricted speech may be an insufficient value It looks like you are imagining that every speech has objective "value" which can be determined (maybe it's hard to do, but if we throw enough "big data" magic dust onto it we can get at least close) and then somehow speech can be sorted by value. I think it's completely wrong from the premise up. The value of the speech is a subjective measure. Some peo…

> Thus I think "value" exists only in the eye of beholder, and trying to objectify it would only mean dismissing the values of part of the audience and emphasizing values of some other part of the audience.

And yet we need to do it. As you observed, "way more people value rants than measured, polite discussion", and I'd claim that this is a problem. The "value" may be subjective, but the consequences of both "kinds of speech" are real, and so it would be great to incentivize the kind that leads to a more stable, more just society, and disincentivize the one that causes thoughtless destruction.

Yes, I'm aware that "disincentivize" is getting dangerously close to "ban", but I feel we need to try and walk that fine line, if we want to have a society that's better than just random.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#557

Post by intended » Tue, Mar 13, 2018, 6:34 AM UTC

ddingus wrote: post #228

oblio wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Yeah - if reddit had a sustainable model in place of a VC model, it would be a different story.

The best example for reddit is a national park, imo.

As for rules -

Rules are not the first line of your defense.

The first line of defense is the price of admission into your community.

I have seen a large number of forums now, and frankly most of the heavy lifting is done by the type of people and the topic.

For example - Boring, technical/professional forums / Intellectual or otherwise taxing topics / Result in a self selection process that reduces noise.

This is also supported by research on how different types of information are spread through networks - http://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/554.full

A classic example of how barriers to entry make an impact - take a look at the dwarf fortress forums around 2008-2010.

The game is arcane, and to grok the game you need to be willing to put in an unusual effort at the time.

The resulting main boards are pretty good, signal vs noise ratios are healthy.

----

The next major rule is that - general topics are bad. It allows people to farm tangential credibility, and anyone with an opinion can speak.

The worst offender are topics on religion(/identity) and politics.

If you allow pol on your forum, you are fighting a losing battle. Pol has the lowest barrier to entry, but actual Policy and Politics are managed by complicated facts and hidden information.

Politics affects everyone, and is designed to be associated with hot button topics.

This single handedly will poison and polarize your community.

----

Between these 2 rules, you can get enough positive starting runway to create a healthy community for a while. Eventually the community will grow old and degrade, but you will avoid a whole host of other problems.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#558

Post by intended » Tue, Mar 13, 2018, 6:39 AM UTC

castis wrote: post #94

devmunchies wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sticks and stones. More concerning is the large scale propaganda and marketing.

This has nothing to do with "getting your feelings hurt". If someone is a dick to you IRL, you just go about life without them and its of zero consequence to you. Imagine if they stayed in your life outside of your own accord and just yelled dumb shit at you from the sidelines. Not everyone is built as strong as you, it bothers some people.

Thats untrue - in that what you describe is the kind of trolling we would wish for because its benign.

Trolls actively target forums for support groups. Today they can attack groups and classes of people.

At this point, expecting people to "grow a thick skin" is not an option, because a major aspect of their life is fighting for their rights against people who are attacking them, or people who have hurt them.

At this juncture the troll loses all rights over the definition and interpretation of how their action should be perceived.

Instead most normal people just see it as vandalism and stop caring about whether it was for the lulz or not.

---

And as stated in the article - NOT responding to a troll who is attacking someone makes you complicit.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#559

Post by intended » Tue, Mar 13, 2018, 6:44 AM UTC

fatbird wrote: post #250

ralusek wrote: 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…

The problem with Reddit is that, while it's not endorsing the content, it is facilitating it. You can let the white supremacists in your neighbourhood use your garage for their weekly meetings and plausibly claim that you're just being neighborly while disagreeing with their purpose. But I'm still going to judge you for helping them out, for making their organizing easier and cheaper, and for smoothing the road for t…

I think that study is good but I add personal nuance when interpreting its obvious curative suggestion.

Its not the ban that worked - as much as the full identification of those groups, the banning of those subs and the negation of the immediate survival attempts of those subs.

The whole process is what worked, not just a simple ban.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#560

Post by hnuser1234 » Tue, Mar 13, 2018, 6:46 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #556

smsm42 wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, I think unrestricted speech may be an insufficient value It looks like you are imagining that every speech has objective "value" which can be determined (maybe it's hard to do, but if we throw enough "big data" magic dust onto it we can get at least close) and then somehow speech can be sorted by value. I think it's completely wrong from the premise up. The value of the speech is a subjective measure. Some peo…

> Thus I think "value" exists only in the eye of beholder, and trying to objectify it would only mean dismissing the values of part of the audience and emphasizing values of some other part of the audience. And yet we need to do it. As you observed, "way more people value rants than measured, polite discussion", and I'd claim that this is a problem . The "value" may be subjective, but the consequences of both "kinds…

What if I don't believe in trying to control people at such a low level? What if I think people should be allowed to be as ranty as they want without having to worry about being "disincentivized"?