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

161–170 of 413 posts

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

#161

Post by sagichmal »

matz1 wrote: post #140
intertextuality wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://voat.co/v/Voat/3178819 > Gas the kikes Race War Now is not an illegal threat. The supreme court has ruled that a threat needs a place and a time to be considered actionable or illegal. example: We're gassing the kikes at the Freemont Synagogue on 5th avenue, Tuesday. This is the most upvoted comment. We can say things like "it's a matter of perspective", but sometimes things are simply objectively shit. edit,…

Obviously for the people who posting it and maybe many more people, it is not shit. Well, its trash for you but treasure for others. To them you are the assholes for calling it trash or wanting to get rid of it. Its all have to do with agreeing and disagreeing. To them proper places of discussion is the place where you can have comments like that. Its all matter of prespective.

We do get to say that some perspectives are right and some are wrong. Humans are moral agents, we have that ability. And those are wrong.

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

#162

Post by cannedslime »

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

You realize anyone can post anything on reddit? I could go to /r/SandersForPresident and LARP as a violent communist revolutionary, right this moment if I wanted to.

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

#163

Post by intertextuality »

matz1 wrote: post #140
intertextuality wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://voat.co/v/Voat/3178819 > Gas the kikes Race War Now is not an illegal threat. The supreme court has ruled that a threat needs a place and a time to be considered actionable or illegal. example: We're gassing the kikes at the Freemont Synagogue on 5th avenue, Tuesday. This is the most upvoted comment. We can say things like "it's a matter of perspective", but sometimes things are simply objectively shit. edit,…

Obviously for the people who posting it and maybe many more people, it is not shit. Well, its trash for you but treasure for others. To them you are the assholes for calling it trash or wanting to get rid of it. Its all have to do with agreeing and disagreeing. To them proper places of discussion is the place where you can have comments like that. Its all matter of prespective.

No, it's objectively dumpster trash. Dig deeper in the linked post and you'll see way worse comments.

There are subjective things and there are objective things. What you're doing at this moment (trying to justify both sides) is intellectually dishonest.

> To them you are the assholes for calling it trash or wanting to get rid of it.

A child might call their parents stupid for not letting them eat candy all day. Objectively the parents are not stupid, the child has a mistaken perspective.

From the perspective of a hypergiant star, the sun is not that big. This does not change the objective truth that the sun is a large object.

I hope you realize you are justifying horrible, vile speech by trying to "see both sides".

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

#164

Post by slothtrop »

etrautmann wrote: post #125
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 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.

Racist online communities aren't difficult to find. The problems brew on the fringes first. Regardless of how they might see it, I think the close proximity to the rest of the public erodes it's power.

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

#165

Post by Noumenon72 »

sureaboutthis wrote: post #148

About a year ago, we had a discussion about reddit at work and tried this experiment. Three of us went to a city subreddit, /r/mycity, and looked for controversial posts about things like local politics, things involving police, and so on. One of us would make posts agreeing with others in the thread. Another would ask questions, feigning lack of knowledge but generally disagreeing, while a third intentionally took a…

Yes. Who knows if the reason all the comments above you are pro-suppressing minority views is because that's how HN feels or because people are suppressing minority views?

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

#166

Post by deertick1 »

This is so frustrating to me. First of all who is to say what constitutes toxic? For instance, a drug related subreddit I know of was banned. There, people discussed harm reduction and chemistry of novel compounds. It was amazing and very useful for people. But that got banned.

Second- no of course this isnt effective. Its effective at removing people from the platform. But it is not decreasing "hate speech" (which is nonsense newspeak anyway) its just pushing it out of the mainstream. And for those of you making the argument that it is reducing peoples exposure to hate speech which stops its proliferation... Nonsense. In a free society everyone gets to dicide what they do and don't believe. You cannot control peoples thoughts by reducing their exposure to the bad thoughts.

Good people will not be convinced by bad arguments. Bad people will be bad either way.

I hate this so much and reddit is not NEARLY theplace it used to be. Now it is a liberal echo chamber which is all too happy to collectively shout down any divergent thinking. It was alwaysthat way to an extent, but it's so bad now that I finally had to delete my 6 year old account.

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

#167

Post by thosakwe »

Smithalicious wrote: post #98

A good opportunity to point out that "toxic" means exactly "people I disagree with" and absolutely nothing more.

I find this extremely hard to believe.

I disagree with white supremacists, anti-vaxxers, and people who defend sex offenders.

I also disagree with think that JSON is more readable than YAML, that C++ is a good language to teach beginners, and that Apache is more user-friendly than nginx.

Only one of these groups is "toxic" to me. But just "people I disagree with" is not an accurate representation as to why I find them toxic.

i.e. They cause actual harm to the general public.

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

#168

Post by matz1 »

intertextuality wrote: post #163
matz1 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously for the people who posting it and maybe many more people, it is not shit. Well, its trash for you but treasure for others. To them you are the assholes for calling it trash or wanting to get rid of it. Its all have to do with agreeing and disagreeing. To them proper places of discussion is the place where you can have comments like that. Its all matter of prespective.

No, it's objectively dumpster trash. Dig deeper in the linked post and you'll see way worse comments. There are subjective things and there are objective things. What you're doing at this moment (trying to justify both sides) is intellectually dishonest. > To them you are the assholes for calling it trash or wanting to get rid of it. A child might call their parents stupid for not letting them eat candy all day. Obje…

I saw the post and i think its interesting. Glad to see different kind of discussion compared to reddit or hn.

In the prespective of the child, the parent might be stupid. Even in the perspective of other parent, some parent might not consider it stupid.

This just show "large" is relative.

I'm not justifying horrible, vile speech because I disagree that the speech is horrible or vile.

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

#169

Post by uniqueid »

dcolkitt wrote: post #146
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 feel like you're disregarding the concept of the "marketplace of ideas". Pretty much the entire corpus of post-enlightenment thought rests on the (IMO well-founded) belief that good ideas will naturally win over bad ideas when presented on equal footing. Someone from 1500 would be very much concerned about censoring "heresies", because they'd believe that people are easily swayed and manipulated by evil. I think we…

I'm not convinced that "good ideas will naturally win over bad ideas" applies to twelve year old children. My assumption is that a sizable contingent of tweens explains the tone of many of the internet's worst places.

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

#170

Post by matz1 »

sagichmal wrote: post #161
matz1 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously for the people who posting it and maybe many more people, it is not shit. Well, its trash for you but treasure for others. To them you are the assholes for calling it trash or wanting to get rid of it. Its all have to do with agreeing and disagreeing. To them proper places of discussion is the place where you can have comments like that. Its all matter of prespective.

We do get to say that some perspectives are right and some are wrong. Humans are moral agents, we have that ability. And those are wrong.

Yes human are moral agents and at the same time every human are different. What one called "wrong" might not be wrong for other.
Post reply on HN