Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017) • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by toss1 » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 12:26 PM UTC

DeusExMachina wrote: post #29

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 no…

You seem to be overlooking at least two key findings.

When the users moved to other Reddit groups, they did NOT exhibit the same level of hateful behavior. some of this was due to better moderation. This contradicts your view that they simply go away to deeper holes away from moderating influences, and supports your point that moderating influences do provide positive influence.

The other key finding is that "bigotry is easy and those who cherish it are lazy". So, merely removing the cesspool removes a place for them to swim, and they often simply don't bother to go find or create another cesspool. So, overall activity is reduced.

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

#52

Post by throwaway287391 » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 12:29 PM UTC

1337biz wrote: post #31

r3bl wrote: post #15

> Migration was common, both to similar subreddits (i.e. overtly racist ones) and tangentially related ones (r/The_Donald). Tangentially-related? I'm pretty sure this crosses the line of being tangentially-related to racism. https://i.redd.it/ua1ukmoi8ls21.jpg

Congratulations, you found a few idiots amongst 700.000+ people.

If you think this kind of thing is hard to find on /r/The_Donald, you've either never visited it or are (possibly willfully) in denial.

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

#53

Post by Buldak » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 12:29 PM UTC

DeusExMachina wrote: post #29

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 no…

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

There are plenty of people who thought that it wouldn't work to that extent, either. They claimed that allowing a subreddit for toxic topic X at least had the benefit of segregating proponents of X; and that if such subreddits were banned their inhabitants would infect the rest of Reddit. But that didn't happen.

I remember when posts from r/FatPeopleHate would regularly make the front page. Then FPH was banned, and you know what, we didn't see it metastasize elsewhere, we just saw many fewer FPH-style posts, which I'd say is a good thing.

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

#54

Post by moron4hire » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 12:30 PM UTC

DeusExMachina wrote: post #29

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 no…

There are two issues that make "out of sight, out of mind" in this case not the absolute worst.

First, it makes it much harder for them to radicalize and recruit new people. There is a lot of circumstantial proof that mere exposure to fringe ideas can convert a lot of people, even folks we wouldn't necessarily consider "borderline". Look at YouTube's autoplay algorithm and various conspiracy theories like Flat Eartherism, or stories we've heard of Facebook moderators needing to get rotated out to avoid radicalization.

Second, in moving to less popular platforms, less dedicated, existing members are lost as they stay on the old platform for other content. Voat is a good example of how these alternative platforms aren't always self-sustainable. If more of the popular platforms took a hardline stance, it scatters the miscreants to the wind, where their numbers dwindle and they hopefully, eventually evaporate.

It's not a complete solution and requires too much cooperation between adversarial corporations, but it's a start.

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

#55

Post by martythemaniak » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 12:31 PM UTC

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.

I'm going to make up and then present you with the "Best Comment for this article" award.

Short, sweet, memorable and cuts through all the BS and leaves only understanding.

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

#56

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 12:31 PM UTC

gristig wrote: post #37

r3bl wrote: post #15

> Migration was common, both to similar subreddits (i.e. overtly racist ones) and tangentially related ones (r/The_Donald). Tangentially-related? I'm pretty sure this crosses the line of being tangentially-related to racism. https://i.redd.it/ua1ukmoi8ls21.jpg

The underlined posts have 2 upvotes. It can't really be used to represent anything

[deleted]

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

#57

Post by ausbah » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 12:33 PM UTC

DeusExMachina wrote: post #29

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 no…

>Except that, these people are now relegated to an echo chamber far from public discourse where they will only reinforce their views without challenge.

Reddit already provided these groups with an echo chamber that was public facing, and a platform that exposed them to other points of view. That didn't do anything though, people largely don't have their views changed just because they are around others with different view points.

>An echo chamber that is now suddenly more appealing, because it's forbidden.

If it's out of the public eye, people are less likely to know it exists right? Yes maybe people who do hear about such "secret places of discussion" are likely to be drawn to them, but the number of newcomers who are even exposed to such groups are significantly cut down by simply not being accessible.

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

#58

Post by spamizbad » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 12:34 PM UTC

DeusExMachina wrote: post #29

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 no…

> I also got reminded of the fact that, before Hitler got to power, Germany had hate speech laws that explecitly forbid nazi propaganda.

That's actually the law today in Germany. The Weimar Republic itself focused its censorship on limiting the distribution on what today we'd consider middlebrow pop-fiction and pornography, but generally excluded matters of politics and religion. It did have laws against anti-semitic speech, but anti-semitism itself as already extremely widespread so it was like a fan blowing against a hurricane.

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

#59

Post by joeyrideout » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 12:36 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #32

joeyrideout wrote: post #25

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 governi…

I'm not so worried about the free speech aspects of that...there's always somewhere to spew whatever opinion you have. I do agree, though, that Google and others wield a lot of power by being able to permaban a whole account/person for an alleged incident on just one of their platforms. Where "banned on YouTube" means, for example, that your Android phone no longer works.

Yes, but "there's always somewhere" may stop being true if we enter that dystopia.

Competition for fringe discussion exists today so our society is healthy (thank goodness). If a true monopoly is allowed to form in these platforms, we will have a big problem. Thankfully we have anti-compete laws. Unfortunately it feels like we are flirting with monopolies when vertically integrated companies like Apple and Google have a very large market share (from Android to YouTube, as you mention).

My favourite Sci Fi that deals with that dystopian future is a little-known show called Continuum. The oligarchy begins when governments go bankrupt and get bailed out by corporations in exchange for political power in the form of a "corporate congress". Fantastic show. Still sticks with me.

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

#60

Post by kuzehanka » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 12:36 PM UTC

p49k wrote: post #33

kuzehanka wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What evidence has shown that engaging with them is more effective? It seems to be like it’s nearly impossible to convince someone that their worldview is wrong; however people do feel the need and desire to be part of communities and knowing they might be excluded for having hateful views might be more of a motivator for them to rethink those views on their own terms, which is possibly a more effective method of chan…

> What evidence has shown that engaging with them is more effective?

We have a lot of evidence that marginalising sufficiently large groups leads to tremendous backlash when they reach critical mass, e.g. almost every revolution in history. I think we can agree that doing exactly that which failed every time before is not a productive avenue.

> having hateful views

Let's not conflate hateful views with 'toxic' views. The term toxic refers to any unpopular view. In addition to hate speech, this includes various sexual preferences, political views, anti-science movements, mens rights groups, etc.