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

181–190 of 413 posts

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

#181

Post by walshemj »

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…

I looked at youtube recently on a clean browser and almost all of the content suggested was far right - I don't mean conservatives I mean ultra's

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

#184

Post by slothtrop »

Operyl wrote: post #173
slothtrop wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.”

That's not the kind of content you just stumble upon. If they sought that out they'd just as well have sought out other forums, so I find it moot that they happen to find racist content they found agreeable on reddit that further radicalized them. It's like the incels, they're just looking for a circle jerk.

The reason I feels strongly about it is open discussion with racists have led to conversion away from white supremacy that would not have otherwise occurred e.g. Davis - https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...

The fear of power of racists operating on a platform like reddit is overblown by virtue that racists seem stronger without it; strongest with echo chambers.

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

#185

Post by tastroder »

matz1 wrote: post #179
tastroder wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess don't get what you're trying to say then.

Yes, society as a whole has a collective opinion that forms the mainstream and defines a) what's outside of that and b) what to do with those outside of it. Do you see a problem in excluding these opinions from mainstream platforms like Facebook and reddit? Even with a pretty open stance towards free speech I see excluding people posting racist death threats from a platform I use to look at cat pictures as a positive.

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

#186

Post by amanaplanacanal »

reader5000 wrote: post #176
clucas wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

How did you get the idea that the majority are the cesspool from that?

In my experience, the majority is "I don't have any interest in arguing." Leaving the cesspool to those few who do want to argue.

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

#187

Post by bgilroy26 »

9HZZRfNlpR wrote: post #86
p49k wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a disingenuous excuse for people to use a racial slur anytime someone mentioned the word “water” to the point where it appeared almost any time someone used the word in any context for any reason. It’s ridiculous how many people can’t control themselves when they think they have a thin excuse to cover their terrible behavior.

I'm not American but I've been told the word nigga is not the n word. Do I have a wrong impression about it? I'm surprised a bit because the mainstream music is filled with the word nigga but also the n word. Isn't it workings against the idea of not using these words?

Both ____a and ____er are the N-word and should not be said by non-black people

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

#188

Post by anbop »

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…

You see this right now, where Trump’s support in the ballot box is stronger than his support in polling which is stronger than his support in the media, because when a point of view becomes socially unacceptable, people only express it in private.

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

#189

Post by matz1 »

tastroder wrote: post #185
matz1 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess don't get what you're trying to say then. Yes, society as a whole has a collective opinion that forms the mainstream and defines a) what's outside of that and b) what to do with those outside of it. Do you see a problem in excluding these opinions from mainstream platforms like Facebook and reddit? Even with a pretty open stance towards free speech I see excluding people posting racist death threats from a pl…

Yes at least for me it is a problem. I want to see those opinion.

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

#190

Post by tzs »

geofft wrote: post #21
intertextuality wrote: post #3

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…

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 seems to have four distinct kinds of groups, populated by two distinct kinds of people.

The groups are:

1. Groups that were kicked off Reddit for hate or questionable sex, went to voat, and got shut down there, too, or are still there but get very little activity.

An example of one that got shut down would be /v/jailbait.

An example of one that just gets very little activity would be /v/coontown. It goes months between posts.

2. Questionable sex groups that are somewhat active. /v/loli is an example.

3. Groups on neutral topics that get regular posts, like /v/technology or /v/funny or /v/science.

4. Hate groups with regular posts. (I assume these exist. I've never actually seen one, because I only go to voat when some disucssion elsewhere points to it, and that has never taken me to an active hate group).

The two kinds of people are:

1. People who came there for the hate groups.

2. People who came there for the sex groups.

The people who came there for the hate groups also post in the neutral groups, so the comments in /v/technology or /v/funny are full of hate stuff. The hate people seem to stay out of the sex groups.

I can't tell if the sex people also post in the neutral groups. My guess is that they probably do not.

The Voat groups for things like science and technology have nothing that sets them apart from the corresponding Reddit groups except the hate comments.

Sex is much easier to compartmentalize than hate. If you like something that most would find unacceptable sexually, there is no reason for that to come up when you participate in, say, a technology or science discussion. You can go to Voat for those sex groups that aren't allowed on Reddit, but stay on Reddit for everything else.

Hate group people, on the other hand, are more likely to let it leak out, and so get banned from neutral topic Reddit groups, and so have to go somewhere like Voat for those topics.

Post reply on HN