61–70 of 413 posts
> 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
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". 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. What about all of the new people who would have more easily stumbled into those cesspools, but now have to take quite a bit more effort, an…
I feel that the anti-vaccine movement had such a large resurgence because they had very public platforms. So, yeah, I agree with you.
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…
The influence works in both directions. If "bad people" are able to publish content that is easy to find on a platform used by millions, it's likely to be seen by people who would never have been exposed to or influenced by it otherwise. Personally, I'd be happy if easily-influenced people weren't exposed daily to Islamist propaganda and pedophillic imagery. If the price of that is those communities going underground…
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…
And it turns out that yes, voat and gab.ai are both filled with the utter dregs of society. Is this "free speech" positive hangout a wonderful paradise full of intellectuals and idealists? No, just a bunch of racist conspiracy nut trash.
What does this say about the validity of the questionable study linked here that applauds "deplatforming" and only examines a few short-time consequences? Great success, sending more people from reddit to their own hate platform that will grow and exploit synergies among groups of particularly toxic people.
Only marginally.
If you read the paper (http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf), you can see that ~20% of the users of the banned subreddits became inactive vs 10-15% in control communities. The difference for users that deleted their account is of the same magnitude.
The users that stayed had a dramatic drop in hate speech.
Also, people end up believing disinformation that is often repeated. Silencing those opinions probably has a net positive effect on society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The influence works in both directions. If "bad people" are able to publish content that is easy to find on a platform used by millions, it's likely to be seen by people who would never have been exposed to or influenced by it otherwise. Personally, I'd be happy if easily-influenced people weren't exposed daily to Islamist propaganda and pedophillic imagery. If the price of that is those communities going underground…
The danger here is this distinction between the wise protectors of "easily influenced people" and the dumb asses that need protection. Who decides who is who? I do not think this is always clear cut. People who seek the role of censor are almost always the wrong people to be entrusted with that power. And historically we have many examples of ideas that were thought to be ridiculous, dangerous, etc, that turned to be…
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". 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. What about all of the new people who would have more easily stumbled into those cesspools, but now have to take quite a bit more effort, an…
But punishment is a multifaceted thing. It serves for protection, but also virtue signaling and creating incentive. There's eye for an eye, too, the taliation principle, and that's what the grand parent comment lamments, I guess.
There are different theories of punishment. Satisfaction from reciprocating pain shouldn't be the goal, at any rate. Getting nevertheless to letting somebody have a taste of their own medicine as a way of irony, is much more difficult, but much more effective than selectively accepting the legitimacy of the method and forcing the taste.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. What about all of the new people who would have more easily stumbled into those cesspools, but now have to take quite a bit more effort, an…
> the disease requires treating them things at a lower level I feel that the anti-vaccine movement had such a large resurgence because they had very public platforms. So, yeah, I agree with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The danger here is this distinction between the wise protectors of "easily influenced people" and the dumb asses that need protection. Who decides who is who? I do not think this is always clear cut. People who seek the role of censor are almost always the wrong people to be entrusted with that power. And historically we have many examples of ideas that were thought to be ridiculous, dangerous, etc, that turned to be…
Nothing is ever clear cut, but a lack of perfect knowledge and the possibility of unintended consequences are poor reasons to refrain from acting when the consequences of not acting are dire.
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…