[dead]
Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
211–220 of 413 posts
Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
#212Earlier 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”)
This isn't a quantitative opinion, but here's how I think about it. Generally hate springs from some kind of problem or ideological bent in a person's life, but those problems and bents are initially undirected and latent. Eventually, someone comes up with a story that speaks to these impulses and describes why a particular group is the cause of their ills, despite ahistoricism or any kind of grounded logical argument (some groups can be actual problems such as slave masters or a literal invading army).
The inchoate pain these latent hate group members feel could be resolved in another way by accurately portraying the source of their problem, and giving them a realistic way of solving it. However, often in our society, we don't provide these things. Therefore, they remain susceptible.
When a hater that tells a powerful narrative gets together with others, this becomes dangerous. The group now validates their beliefs and it becomes self-reinforcing and actionable.
Deplatforming prevents hate groups from getting new recruits by making these stories and groups harder to access. It also is a message to the more marginal members that what they are doing is shunned and they should think hard about what they are doing. Essentially, the idea is prevent these small scale problems from turning into a social movement that would be highly destructive.
Is it a bandaid? Yes. We have to work much harder on our social and economic problems to make sure everyone is included in society and can live a decent life. That would remove much of the impetus for joining hate groups.
Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
#213This is why we need decentralized, hard to take down platform, but still relatively easy to be discover platform.
It's also why most people won't use one - it'll turn into a cesspit of prejudice and hate.
Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
#214Earlier 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"?
The whole conversation is a bit abstract at this point, so maybe it wasn't clear: the "cesspool" I'm referring to are virulent racists.
If you believe that either (a) arguments against such people less clear and rational than the racists' arguments, or (b) such people are actually in the majority, then I believe we disagree on things so fundamental we can't have a constructive debate about Reddit's policies.
Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
#215Earlier 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…
>But I don't think we live in that world.
We might not, but denying the possibility only guarantees we move further away from it.
Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
#216This 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…
> You cannot control peoples thoughts by reducing their exposure to the bad thoughts.
Actually, yes, you can, quite literally. Falsehoods repeated ad nauseam are convincing in the long run (do you remember the second Irak war and the WMD hoax propagated by the government? Half the US still believes that one).
In a meeting, a single person making the same argument three times is almost as convincing as three people making it once.
Etc...
We're not as free as you imagine.
Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
#217About 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…
OK, something is wrong with your anecdote.
Bans from a specific subreddit are instituted by the mods of the subreddit. I can easily picture the mods wanting a sub to be run in a certain way, and if you run afoul of them, you are out.
Account suspensions from reddit and shadowbans can only be done by reddit admins. Why would they even care about whatever politics are happening in some tiny sub?
Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So who gets "physically violent" against who when Reddit bans some subs? Or do you mean to say that isn't censorship?
Burning a book is physical violence. Banning a sub is physical violence. In censorship you are forcibly destroying a communication between two nonviolent third parties.
Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Inasmuch as different parts of society disagree on how to "improve" it, one part does not have the right to censor the other.
Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And you might still consider this to be a satisfiable definition for "it worked". Out of sight, out of mind. I think expecting the behavior to disappear is an unrealistic goal. Marginalizing it certainly makes it less appealing because it's clear it's not widely socially acceptable. > Except that, these people are now relegated to an echo chamber far from public discourse where they will only reinforce their views…
> Marginalizing it certainly makes it less appealing because it's clear it's not widely socially acceptable. So, how did the 18th Amendment in the United States, i.e. Prohibition, work out? Surely, the broad public support and commitment to marginalizing alcohol, enough to get a constitutional amendment passed (no small feat), has been successful in making the US a booze-free country today? No? Marginalization only w…
Alcohol is a physically addictive product that was already engrained in acceptable culture. This isn't really a fair comparison.
Even so, cigarette smoking was similarly marginalized (though not outlawed, making it a better analog) to great effect.