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

171–180 of 413 posts

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

#171

Post by tastroder »

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.

Sorry but when you justify giving abhorrent statements like that a platform with perspective, please keep in mind that this absolute definition of free speech is not reflected in the whole world. Posting something like that in Germany would likely get you at least some sort of lawsuit and from my "perspective" that's a good thing. We as society can certainly discuss where the specific line is that needs to be crossed but I'm sure we can defend free speech without giving rise to radicals and people that actively advertise killing people because of their race, gender, or religion.

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

#172

Post by aiyodev »

Reddit got the racists and sexists to leave by dialing the bigotry up to 11.

Reddit has never been as hateful as it is today. Take a look at /r/politics sometime. Do you see love?

People jump down your throat if you dare disagree with the hive mind. Those expressing the most popular opinions get to bully the minority. Fighting back will get you banned for incivility.

The censorship has also had a chilling effect on creativity. People create garbage content afraid to publish anything controversial. It’s becoming as boring to read as Facebook.

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

#173

Post by Operyl »

slothtrop wrote: post #159
rmah wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that is a good end. The definition of ending well. Such forums are, by definition, smaller and have less reach. Moreover, it is clear that members of such forums are supporters of the nastiness the forum espouses.

I'm not sure they have less reach. Most people have heard of the chans and stormfront from notoriety. And for one, I seriously doubt an individual comes into white nationalism through mainstream channels like reddit. What this ultimately accomplishes is that the public gets to be blissfully ignorant about the blemishes, but these people are operating in the same capacity as before without brushing up to challenges as…

Meh, I know of at least 3 ex-friends that came across enough content on Reddit to “push them over the edge.” I.e. they literally “credited” Reddit for their “enlightenment.”

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

#174

Post by lightedman »

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…

"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."

The irony of HN having this article on their front page while they engage in the same bullshit behavior is just delicious.

Maybe HN should learn from the site that's over 1,000x bigger than themselves.

Oh, wait, dang and stcb aren't that smart.

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

#175

Post by user17843 »

deertick1 wrote: post #166

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 i…

Yes, I agree. Within 1-2 years Reddit will be a collectivist utopia where controversial topics are banned outright and everyone who does not conform to the majority opinion is being made invisible through downvoting.

This is already the case in the big subreddits but there are still islands of freedom here and there.

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

#176

Post by reader5000 »

clucas wrote: post #115
pmarreck wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that you can get rid of it. I’ve rationally argued against racism with some success. (And often while getting comments autoblocked for hate speech. Can’t clean up manure without getting your hands a little dirty, unfortunately.) “Bullshit” is taking the easy way out by mass-automatic-deplatforming instead of addressing the bad thought head-on.

That's a much better argument than I thought you were making, so my apologies for misunderstanding. I still disagree though - I think Reddit probably agreed with you for most of its existence, but evidence indicated that rationality and clear arguments weren't winning, and the virality of these ideas was too potent to be overcome by a few people who were willing to wade into the cesspool. So they drained the cesspool…

> evidence indicated that rationality and clear arguments weren't winning

On what grounds do you base your own sense of "rationality and clear argument" as superior to that of the apparent majority of people that you refer to as "the cesspool"?

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

#177

Post by Noumenon72 »

One of my favorite things about Reddit was the ability to find people actually expressing opinions that are anathema in the mainstream media, like "women can also be bad sometimes". I feel heavily oppressed by the people in this thread saying I'm not allowed to read or talk about those things except in the equivalent of a "free speech zone".

I think the comparison to a law forcing the homeless out of your neighborhood is apt. It works, but you must recognize that you are using power to harm people you don't like, not just improving the world for everyone. Like police power, it sometimes does improve the world for everyone and sometimes it grows to do more harm than good. In this case the result is good, but the fact that everyone just thinks "I like the result so censorship powers are good" is a step down a slippery slope.

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

#178

Post by the8472 »

clucas wrote: post #132
lordlimecat wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It probably isn't obvious from my posts, so I'll put it here explicitly: I'm not pro-censorship. I think ideas should be out there. My ideal world is one where there are the "big" sites with millions of DAU generally keep racist content (or at least the really nasty stuff) off their platform, but there are plenty of little sites that "keep the dream alive" so to speak. A lot of people aren't going to be willing or ab…

> I think ideas should be out there. My ideal world is one where there are the "big" sites with millions of DAU generally keep racist content (or at least the really nasty stuff) off their platform, but there are plenty of little sites that "keep the dream alive" so to speak.

But reddit is already compartmentalized. Subreddits for fringe ideas are those "plenty of little sites", especially when they are delisted from the front pages.

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

#179

Post by matz1 »

tastroder wrote: post #171
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.

Sorry but when you justify giving abhorrent statements like that a platform with perspective, please keep in mind that this absolute definition of free speech is not reflected in the whole world. Posting something like that in Germany would likely get you at least some sort of lawsuit and from my "perspective" that's a good thing. We as society can certainly discuss where the specific line is that needs to be crossed…

My point is that there are no one correct action that everyone will agree. There are no specific line that everyone will happy with.

Its boil down to whoever win on the battle.

The winning side get to decide the meaning of free speech, the meaning of radicals, right or wrong or where the line is.

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

#180

Post by Grue3 »

untog wrote: post #119
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…

The issue isn't where radicalised people go. It's how people get radicalised in the first place. Both Reddit and YouTube are general purpose sites. Very, very few people go on there to discuss the e.g. racist beliefs they already have. But the algorithms on these sites ends up exposing people to extreme views - there are many, many examples out there of people watching an innocuous video on YouTube only to immediatel…

>Germany has outlawed Nazis since the end of WW2 and guess what... they haven't taken over again.

Nor have they taken over in any other country, regardless of being banned. Because their ideology has already been exposed for the bullshit it is. The ban did nothing.

Post reply on HN