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

121–130 of 413 posts

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

#121

Post by CM30 »

intertextuality wrote: post #44
lsd5you wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels to me like hubris, a kind of 'end of history' prediction that we have finally progressed to at least the beginnings of a final moral order. Personally I don't believe this to be the case, and the ways it can go wrong will leave us wishing that freedom of speech protection had not been eroded.

No one is eroding anything, please don't be melodramatic. Free speech is a protection from the government , not products offered by corporations; end of story. You are free to not use reddit, or create your own reddit.

No, that's the first amendment. It does not equal freedom of speech, and the US constitution is not the be all and end all on how rights like that work.

There's plenty of material in the philosophical world about freedom of speech in regards to censorship by private parties and other people.

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

#122

Post by JohnStrangeII »

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…

Unless you think people should be punished for thought crimes, that seems like exactly the right kind of "it worked" to me. You don't want to give these toxic communities a broad recruitment platform and you don't want them to destroy your forum culture. That's your right as the provider of a privately owned social network. Of course, they can go elsewhere. They can make their own website and host it in another country, if they really want to.

These kind of bans are not about doing favors or not, they are about maintaining a site that you can live with as a company or private forum owner. It has been like that online on every public forum since the dialup BBS system days.

If on the other they plan to commit crimes, then that's a matter for police and the public prosecutor's office, not for private companies, no matter where those groups go or meet.

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

#123

Post by chomp »

threeseed wrote: post #78
geofft wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is already on its way to being shut down. The owners posted last week a message telling some of their users to stop inciting violence as the Feds were in contact. Given that Voat is ultra-toxic now it's not going to be possible to moderate every piece of content ever posted. https://voat.co/v/Voat/3178819

Wow, I remember joining Voat way back when it first started and it just seemed like an angsty Reddit. I even started a group for my home town.

Just read that thread and it's crazy how much it has festered since then. Everyone there just seems so angry all the time, there are zero positive posts on the front page. How do people live their lives so angry all the time?

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

#124

Post by lordlimecat »

clucas wrote: post #105
pmarreck wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to see evidence that “deplatforming” actually reduces hate globally instead of simply moving it elsewhere, because I haven’t seen any, and until then this is simply an unfounded belief (i.e., “bullshit”)

The thing is, Reddit isn't responsible for, and couldn't possibly begin be responsible for, hate in the whole world. They banned it on their site, and it cleaned up their corner of the world, and they're happy that the place they have control over has less hate. That's not bullshit. Bullshit is saying "well, we can't possibly get rid of it, so may as well let it stay where ever it shows up."

Bullshit is saying "We stand for free speech" and then later saying "the best way to deal with toxic and hateful viewpoints is to censor and hide them."

Belief in free speech as a principle assumes that good and right arguments will win out every day in an open public forum.

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

#125

Post by etrautmann »

pmarreck wrote: post #94
sagichmal wrote: post #36

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…

I would like to see evidence that “deplatforming” actually reduces hate globally instead of simply moving it elsewhere, because I haven’t seen any, and until then this is simply an unfounded belief (i.e., “bullshit”)

The burden of proof is to show that it IS as bad or worse after deplatforming, given the observation that it reduces the problem locally and makes it harder for new people to discover and convert into those communities.

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

#126

Post by akhilcacharya »

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

As someone that’s heard the president talk it really is hard to say tangentially related.

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

#127

Post by Ardren »

threeseed wrote: post #78
geofft wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is already on its way to being shut down. The owners posted last week a message telling some of their users to stop inciting violence as the Feds were in contact. Given that Voat is ultra-toxic now it's not going to be possible to moderate every piece of content ever posted. https://voat.co/v/Voat/3178819

The top comment on that post is just amazing. Voat really is the place where you can "have your say™"

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

#128

Post by luckylion »

pygy_ wrote: post #99
luckylion wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The users that stayed had a dramatic drop in hate speech. Which might mean that they don't engage in hate speech as much, or that they do the hate speech thing on another platform and follow their normal hobbies on reddit.

Not really. Page 9 has a graph of the activity before/after the ban, and the drop in activity (in post/day) matches the number of accounts that became inactive. If those users found other outlet for hating, they didn't do so by reducing their reddit activity.

Did those include the inactive account, or is it the rate of activity of those that showed signs of life?

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

#129

Post by mirashii »

pmarreck wrote: post #94
sagichmal wrote: post #36

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…

I would like to see evidence that “deplatforming” actually reduces hate globally instead of simply moving it elsewhere, because I haven’t seen any, and until then this is simply an unfounded belief (i.e., “bullshit”)

I would like to see evidence that “deplatforming” doesn't actually reduce hate globally instead of simply moving it elsewhere, because I haven’t seen any, and until then this is simply an unfounded belief (i.e., “bullshit”)

While it's easy to be a critic and call someone else's view bullshit because you haven't seen evidence, it's not really adding anything to the discussion, it's just being needlessly inflammatory. You could accomplish the same thing by saying something as simple as "The evidence shows it worked for Reddit in isolation, but whether it works globally is unclear. Has anyone seen evidence that it does or doesn't? My gut says it doesn't."

Now when someone goes to analyze and respond they're not starting to argue with someone who dismissed something they may not be familiar with as bullshit right out the gate. It's better to keep an open mind to either possibility under a lack of evidence.

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

#130

Post by TheCondor »

pmarreck wrote: post #94
sagichmal wrote: post #36

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…

I would like to see evidence that “deplatforming” actually reduces hate globally instead of simply moving it elsewhere, because I haven’t seen any, and until then this is simply an unfounded belief (i.e., “bullshit”)

Do you think having a president that has lent support to racism and white supremacy has changed the amount of racism or just revealed it?
Post reply on HN