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

Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 413 posts

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#21

Post by geofft »

intertextuality wrote: post #3

Reddit back in the day: bans /r/fatpeoplehate, /r/coontown, /r/jailbait, and other awful subreddits. Reddit today: effectively bans (quarantines) /r/waterniggas simply because of the subreddit's title. It was quite literally a joke subreddit about being hydrated. Doesn't ban subreddits like /r/hapas. Edit: The problem with reddit is that it's wildly inconsistent about banning subreddits. Insane subreddits can exist f…

Did anything happen with Voat, though? I hear frequently (just yesterday, in fact!) about terrorists radicalized on 8chan. I see screenshots of Gab quite often. I only hear about Voat in the context of "A few years ago, some people left Reddit."

If the net effect is that certain people left Reddit for a platform inviting the worst of Reddit, and then didn't stay there either, that seems like a win.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#22

Post by intertextuality »

rectangleboy wrote: post #4
intertextuality wrote: post #3

Reddit back in the day: bans /r/fatpeoplehate, /r/coontown, /r/jailbait, and other awful subreddits. Reddit today: effectively bans (quarantines) /r/waterniggas simply because of the subreddit's title. It was quite literally a joke subreddit about being hydrated. Doesn't ban subreddits like /r/hapas. Edit: The problem with reddit is that it's wildly inconsistent about banning subreddits. Insane subreddits can exist f…

Substantial?

Substantial enough that voat turned to shit right after. I was looking into it at the time, but it got way worse after the banwaves.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#23

Post by kuzehanka »

DavidHm wrote: post #10
chobeat wrote: post #5

They are only moving to other platforms that are harder to track, like Discord or Telegram. Just because they don't appear in the data doesn't mean that they don't exist. Then yes, you sanitize some platforms but the problem as a whole is just less evident but still growing.

I would argue that's still a win. Discord and Telegram are more difficult to track because they are less public and visible. The move has therefore managed to reduce the exposure that non-active participants have to toxic behaviour, and the normalization of said behaviour as something acceptable/tolerated.

The size and conviction of 'toxic' groups is growing, not diminishing. Marginalising them and pushing them to less-visible communication channels is only harmful from every angle except staving off short-term moral outrage of social justice types.

When various less-desirable groups existed on reddit, it was easy to monitor and gauge their size and their beliefs. It was possible to engage with them on some levels. Now they are scattered across various difficult to observe channels and are fully enclosed in an echo chamber that amplifies their beliefs that much more.

The early days of large social platforms like Reddit was the only time in the last several hundred years when it was possible to get a reasonable estimate of what segment of the population held what beliefs, including the less popular ones. Being able to get an objective view of that distribution was the first step in qualifying and addressing the underlying issues.

Instead we are sweeping those demographics under the rug again, and destroying the ability to study and interact with them.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#24

Post by speechthrowa24 »

sagichmal wrote: post #6
intertextuality wrote: post #3

Reddit back in the day: bans /r/fatpeoplehate, /r/coontown, /r/jailbait, and other awful subreddits. Reddit today: effectively bans (quarantines) /r/waterniggas simply because of the subreddit's title. It was quite literally a joke subreddit about being hydrated. Doesn't ban subreddits like /r/hapas. Edit: The problem with reddit is that it's wildly inconsistent about banning subreddits. Insane subreddits can exist f…

> A substantial amount of people went from reddit to voat because at the time voat was new, had signups open, and advertised itself on free speech. Luckily, we're collectively beginning to grow past the naïve belief that free speech is a virtue in itself, an ends, and understand it properly as a means, a tool, which we're all obliged to use ethically and responsibly to make our society better.

No, “we” are not. Would-be totalitarians like you may have a desperate desire to re-frame discussion around speech into an argument over its perceived utility, but those who actually understand and care about liberty aren’t fooled.

Your post is gross ethical deficiency masquerading as self-aggrandizing condescension.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#25

Post by joeyrideout »

An emergent ethical concern keeps bugging me in these situations. Of course, private companies reserve the right to refuse business and services to whomever they want. In a healthy society this is no problem.

But if we slide towards a dystopian future where Big Tech is basically an oligarchy governing important chunks of society without due process and the democratic checks and balances we would expect from a governing body, things look pretty grim.

I have no solution to offer, unfortunately.

EDIT: Despite all the cynicism, I do think we are still on the healthy side of things :)

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#26

Post by Hermel »

For a long time, I underestimated the power of the mods. Then, I saw how a few of them could turn the sentiment of a technical forum about a seemingly technical question upside down, simply by banning the right users and removing the right posts. Censorship works, regardless of whether it is used for good or for bad.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#27

Post by p49k »

intertextuality wrote: post #3

Reddit back in the day: bans /r/fatpeoplehate, /r/coontown, /r/jailbait, and other awful subreddits. Reddit today: effectively bans (quarantines) /r/waterniggas simply because of the subreddit's title. It was quite literally a joke subreddit about being hydrated. Doesn't ban subreddits like /r/hapas. Edit: The problem with reddit is that it's wildly inconsistent about banning subreddits. Insane subreddits can exist f…

It was a disingenuous excuse for people to use a racial slur anytime someone mentioned the word “water” to the point where it appeared almost any time someone used the word in any context for any reason. It’s ridiculous how many people can’t control themselves when they think they have a thin excuse to cover their terrible behavior.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#28

Post by 1337biz »

Waterluvian wrote: post #16
0xfffafaCrash wrote: post #8

So, it "worked" in the sense that the users likely moved to more toxic echo chambers where they can be further radicalized in their toxic viewpoints? Yay?

That's an interesting perspective. I mean, it's kind of like kicking the KKK out of your local YMCA. Sure they go have Klan rallies elsewhere but at least my kids aren't bumping shoulders with them anymore when they're using the water fountain between basketball games.

Yeah, because kids are not attracted to things that are forbidden.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#29

Post by DeusExMachina »

It "worked" only if the definition is "it removed it from Reddit".

As the article mentions, these people did not just disappear or change their mind. They just moved to more obscure places, where they can continue and be evem more motivated, because now they have been censored.

And you might still consider this to be a satisfiable definition for "it worked". Out of sight, out of mind.

Except that, these people are now relegated to an echo chamber far from public discourse where they will only reinforce their views without challenge. An echo chamber that is now suddenly more appealing, because it's forbidden.

Recently, in an episode of the Joe Rogan Podcast with Tim Pool, Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadde, Jack admitted that a woman that was part of the Westboro Baptist Church changed her mind only becasue she was allowed to be on Twitter and be exposed to other points of view.

So, from the point of society, I don't think it ever works to pushi extremists to the underground. Sure, Reddit does not have any obligation to give them a place to gather. But still, maybe it should anyway?

EDIT: Reading other comments here, I also got reminded of the fact that, before Hitler got to power, Germany had hate speech laws that explecitly forbid nazi propaganda. Many were sent to jail for that, which only contributed to their determination and their spreading.

So, if you are concerned that being allowed in the public allows them to spread their views, do not be so sure that pushing them away is going to stop them. You might just do them a favor.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#30

Post by intertextuality »

geofft wrote: post #21
intertextuality wrote: post #3

Reddit back in the day: bans /r/fatpeoplehate, /r/coontown, /r/jailbait, and other awful subreddits. Reddit today: effectively bans (quarantines) /r/waterniggas simply because of the subreddit's title. It was quite literally a joke subreddit about being hydrated. Doesn't ban subreddits like /r/hapas. Edit: The problem with reddit is that it's wildly inconsistent about banning subreddits. Insane subreddits can exist f…

Did anything happen with Voat, though? I hear frequently (just yesterday, in fact!) about terrorists radicalized on 8chan. I see screenshots of Gab quite often. I only hear about Voat in the context of "A few years ago, some people left Reddit." If the net effect is that certain people left Reddit for a platform inviting the worst of Reddit, and then didn't stay there either, that seems like a win.

Voat just became a cesspool because it was all about the "free speech". So you had an influx of the worst of reddit + the sort of people who are attracted to free speech areas online.

It just died off since then, since 1. nobody really quits reddit, and 2. the aforementioned events made voat culture, well, not great.

Post reply on HN