Live data from Hacker News

Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

newyorker.com

601–610 of 757 posts

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#601
post #578
post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may or may not be true that they are expecting doomsday of sorts, but there are a lot of conspirologists which predict imminent doom literally for decades, and when it never comes they aren't bothered by it even a little. If that day will never come - and most likely that's exactly what would happen, if history teaches us something - there wouldn't be no other harm done than a bunch of folks wasting a lot of tim…

I'll whole heartedly agree that there is no smoking gun to any of my theories. I don't equate this speech with violence. My point is just that situations that result in mob violence can deteriorate at a rate far faster than rational voices can prevail. People are programmable. The level of fervor I see on some of these subreddits tells me that someone is programming these people. People are using the tools of psychol…

> I don't equate this speech with violence.

Oh I don't say you do. I am saying the need of so many people to do it suggests there's a distinct lack of violence to point at, otherwise they'd be pointing at it, instead of pointing at words. And since these people are highly motivated to find anything to point at, their failure to find it suggests maybe there's indeed not much political mob violence to find.

> The level of fervor I see on some of these subreddits tells me that someone is programming these people.

For some definition of "programming", maybe. But for that definition, everybody who debates on the internet "programs" everybody else participating in the debate. It's just a nefariously sounding way of describing mundane things, just like writing "contains chemical compounds!" on food packaging.

> People are using the tools of psychology to achieve goals that would not be achievable otherwise

Not sure what you mean by "otherwise". People communicate. Some of them use knowledge of human psychology to make their message more persuasive. It's not something that appeared today or yesterday or this century or this millenium. Is it harder to convince somebody in something if you ignore human psychology? Of course. But there's nothing nefarious about it - it's like saying "people are using tools of physics and chemistry to achieve goals that would not be achievable otherwise". Sure they do, all power to them! That's why we spend all the big bucks financing the science!

> My point is that there is a singular event, Trump leaving office prematurely, that large groups of the right will inevitably interpret as a coup.

That would largely depend on the manner of said leaving, I'd assume. For example, if he becomes gravely ill or suddenly dies, that sounds unlikely. If Democrats win majority in Senate and House in the next election and decide immediately to impeach Trump "because he's bad", without a proof of any real crime committed - that sounds much more likely. But that would be a consequence of highly inappropriate behavior resulting in loss of trust in the democratic system by citizens. The cure for it is not to behave like that. If there's no such behavior then the history shows there would be no significant violence. I've heard rumors that Bush would cancel elections and institute martial law, then Obama would cancel elections, and no doubt I'll hear about Trump cancelling elections, and then whoever will be elected after Trump would cancel elections too. There's always talk about this, because it's easy.

> I realize that there is a spectrum of using psychology to influence people, and I can't tell you where the line is of too far, but can we agree that the line exists?

Not really. There's no "using psychology" but plain old persuasion, and no persuasion is "too far".

Well, of course, if you use violent methods like torture, you can also achieve psychological effects, but if we're talking about persuasive speech alone, then there's nothing "too far" in that. There's no words that can make robots out of people, and in fact convincing somebody to change one's mind on a political question by just throwing words at them is really hard. Possible, but hard. People may be "programmable", but not very easily. Usually if they become convinced in something, there are a lot of reasons for it and a lot of background for it, not just some nefarious article on some forum.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#602
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 kind of agree with you, but I think there's two threads here that need to be teased apart.

I agree that people get considered toxic because they're expressing views that are unpopular within the group in question. All groups have their sacred cows and enemies (where the belief in the truth of these views is often spread socially rather than developed intellectually), and people tend to not look kindly upon someone going against the standard line.

The second thread is that toxicity is not just a matter of the opinions being expressed but also the way they're being expressed. Eg when people are going out of their way to be rude to others, or where they're not arguing in good faith.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#603

Bah, I recently deleted my 5 year account with nearly 4000 comment karma on Reddit. Reddit is toxic. Saying something benign but mildly disagreeable caused some people to get emotional, and I do mean exceedingly emotional like you just crapped in their car and had sex with their girlfriend. I am not talking about politics, but subreddits like javascript and programming . Worse than being toxic, Reddit is an echo cham…

There are definitely reddit communities were this isn't true, though these are largely small community subreddits that focus on some particular topic.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#604
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…

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…

>unrestricted speech may be an insufficient value, like nondiscrimination or atheism. It's not enough to build on. You need positive values too.

I agree with this statement, except for the inclusion of atheism in the list. Atheism is literally the lack of a belief. You may as well say "The lack of belief in astrology isn't enough to build on. You need positive values too."

Unrestricted speech and nondiscrimination argue for something. Atheism literally argues for nothing.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. The problem is, rules are also a way for someone who was wronged to appeal. While it's a line that troublemakers want to thread to push boundaries, when rules are unwritten, communities often become a reflection of the will of the moderator rather than a community of diverse opin…

Unwritten rules have upsides too, though I rarely see them being a reflection of the moderation unless the moderation is being very heavy handed.

I've been in communities that were very pleasant and open about a lot of things where the only rule was, quote, "don't be a dick". I've also been in communities, that despite extensive rules that would make make fellows from my law course cry in joy and fully oriented towards left/liberal, were cesspools of hatred.

I think in both cases it's more a matter of what the moderation will do with what they have. "You reap what you sow" probably applies in some way.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#606
post #592
post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess this has been longer ago, but the Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge takeover by the Bundys was essentially a militia challenging the government to armed conflict. I'm well aware that the case against these people ended in a mistrial because of exculpatory evidence that was withheld. That doesn't change the fact that conservatives have threatened violence in recent political protest.

I suspected somebody would bring up Bundys. However, given that the whole dispute is about grazing fees in some piece of federal land, I can't really take it as a political statement. Yes, Bundys proposed some political theories as justification of their actions, but if there wasn't $1M in grazing fees, I don't think any of it would happen at all. The fact that violence was threatened is bad - but it is hard to take…

Well, luckily for all observers, the Bundy's erased any doubt that they were making political statements with their other armed standoff with federal authorities. You refer to the elder Bundy's grazing fees dispute, which played out at their Nevada ranch. This actually involved a grievance the Bundy's themselves held. I refer to his son Amon Bundy, who took up the cause of another father and son from southeast Oregon, who were jailed for starting fires on federal land, clearing brush. They were originally sentenced to some amount of time, which they served. A judge later determined, after they were already released, that there sentencing was somehow improper, and that they had to serve more time. The father and son willingly complied, and turned themselves in. Amon Bundy and his fellow Yeehawdists took over a National Wildlife Refuge, and essentially tried to provoke another standoff. They want federal lands to be wide open to do whatever they want with, to strip resources, and effectively get something for nothing. They see their inability to do whatever they want, and the consequences of doing so, as tyranny of the government.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#607
> To its devotees, Reddit feels proudly untamed, one of the last Internet giants to resist homogeneity.

Waitwhat? Reddit is a huge hivemind, with each subreddit having more or less the same views, since people who do not agree to the narrative of that subreddit are quickly downvoted so much that they can't post more than once a day or something.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#608

> 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_Donal…

>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.

I think this comparison makes little sense. Either you're comparing newspapers and social media platforms or you're comparing the street corner and the internet. The powers that be should not be censoring the street or the internet. But the owners of newspapers have always exercised some level of control over their content, just as social media platforms exercise varying levels of control over what is posted to them.

I don't like it, but I didn't like newspaper control over newspaper content much either. Expressly ideological newspapers that are more like newsletters are one thing, but newspapers that purport to be objective and are not are quite another.

I don't see echo chambers on reddit as being much different from the echo chamber that is the University [Insert Here] Society's newsletter. Echo chambers have always existed. People sometimes just want to surround themselves with opinions they agree with.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#609
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…

> Real identities Real real identities (i.e. government issued digital id) have never been done. I am sure they will come eventually. The political process is just very slow compared to the pace of technology.

The purpose of using real identities (government ID) is not to facilitate debate and sharing of opinions, but to punish and neuter debate and limit sharing of opinions.

Compare the outcomes of totally anonymous reputation-based forums such as HN, reddit or 4chan with near-real identity forums such as Facebook or Linkedin.

There is a very open flow of ideas and debate on 4chan and other reputation-based forums. There is at least as much hate speech and trolling going on at Facebook as on HN, yet Facebook has near-real identities. Linkedin have at least as much spam and criminal phishing posts going on as HN, yet Linked in has near-real identities.

HN would not be a better forum if everyone had to register with their government ID. The main benefit would be to make it easier to ban one person from accessing the forum, and silence that individual.

My vote is for reputation-based forums.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#610
post #37

> Struggle to Detoxify the Internet The internet isn't toxic. It's the people who are toxic. These people are just as noxious in real life even if some of them hide it when their identities are known. Can anything be done to detoxify the people, or do we just treat them like spam and filter them out? And what happens next when millions of rabid voices are suppressed? The toxic people don't cease to exist, we just won…

I definitely have to disagree with you here. Human behaviour isn't really built in. There are obviously some natural behaviours in humans, but most human behaviour is a result of our surroundings.

When humans are in material need, they act in a way differently from when they aren't in material need. Nobody is surprised by that.

When humans are on reddit, they act differently from how they act on an old-style phpBB forum. No surprises there either.

Post reply on HN