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

201–210 of 413 posts

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

#201

Post by berrynice »

pmarreck wrote: post #110
jonwachob91 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of online hate speech (of any variety) is driven by groupthink. If you make it harder to find the hate groups, you de facto reduce the groupthink.

So you would prefer edgy platforms to move from open cleartext forums where they can be argued against and monitored, to private encrypted forums only populated by the choir, as it were? This will not end well.

Yes, because it divides the communities and smaller communities are easier to extinguish, like cancer cells.

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

#202

Post by freehunter »

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?

With an "a" the word can be a source of pride and community for black Americans, which is why it's used so commonly in black music. Non-black Americans are not commonly accepted into this community, so when non-black Americans say the word it's considered very rude.

With an "er" on the end, it's almost always a racist term.

Either way you spell it, it's pretty much only acceptable for black Americans to say it.

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

#203

Post by amanaplanacanal »

CM30 wrote: post #121
intertextuality wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I like free speech, for the most part, but if it means I can't boot somebody from my house when they are being an asshole, then I am 100% against it.

I think most people's idea of free speech doesn't align with what you are saying.

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

#204

Post by amanaplanacanal »

just_a_dev wrote: post #135
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

Islam is a race now?

"Race" is a pre-scientific term. It means whatever people want it to mean. Language is funny that way.

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

#205

Post by matz1 »

freehunter wrote: post #193
matz1 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For example, Ted Bundy thought that murdering people was not wrong. We need to respect his morals and allow him to murder freely, because every human has different morals and although the murder victim thinks it's "wrong", we need to respect the opinion of the murderer too.

No, depends on your morality. If you thought murder was not wrong than it make sense to respect and follow Ted Bundy but if you thought that murder is wrong, its more sense for you to do the opposite.

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

#206

Post by sagichmal »

reader5000 wrote: post #142
sagichmal wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech has only ever been a means. Some elements of enlightened society got caught in the local optima for awhile (Locke, Hume, etc.) but that only worked out as long as the bad-faith actors could be marginalized or overpowered in a given context. Now that we have the ubiquity of the internet, coupled with the N-chans and Voat and whatever, the trolls have successfully weaponized the unthinking elevation of a me…

Whoever is in power determines what is "ethical society" or what makes society "better". Censorship is a form of physically violent oppression and is never justifiable.

Society is nothing more than the aggregate form of its constituent parts, i.e. all of us. It’s not separate from us, it is us, and we all have an obligation to act to improve it. Censorship is a tool, just like free speech or liberty or law or justice or rhetoric or tradition, that we have to wield to those ethical ends.

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

#207

Post by croon »

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 can produce hundreds of posts from a chosen narrative and filtered or manufactured truths before you can construct a well sourced and thought out counter argument. Good ideas don't naturally win, for the simple reason that the energy cost is asymmetrical, and people's rationality is dependant on access to facts, which further adds energy cost to the good idea side. Bad ideas only need to spread, not worry about facts or reasoning.

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

#208

Post by jancsika »

Smithalicious wrote: post #98

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

"Toxic" means "I may have common ground with this person but I can't tell because this private square keeps giving megaphones to trolls who are drowning both of us out."

The article, GaTech, and HN seem to be skirting around that issue.

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

#209

Post by esoterica »

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…

Reddit has always been an echo chamber. Remember RON PAUL 2008? You’re just mad that it’s a different kind of echo chamber now.

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

#210

Post by Operyl »

slothtrop wrote: post #184
Operyl wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 su…

It very much is. All it can take is a single comment by someone on a popular sub to have someone click their profile to read more, stumbling upon more of the same affirming content.
Post reply on HN