Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017) • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by tastroder » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 4:31 PM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #189

tastroder wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Appreciate the discussion even though I'm sure I won't convince you of my viewpoint. I don't know why you would seek input from these types of people but you can, just not on the mainstream platforms. Your desire to inform yourself just does not outweigh the danger of extremist recruitment when giving these views a platform according to current consensus.

I see moderating who can participate in a group as part of the opinion that this thread seems to try and uphold. If reddit (as the more or less democratic whole, not the company or technical system) prefers not to give terrorists, white supremacists or whatever fringe group that is based on hatred a platform you're free to see that as a problem, it's just not one the mainstream agrees with.

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

#222

Post by simion314 » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

intertextuality wrote: post #152

simion314 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not true, we disagree here on HN on many topics like software freedom, is Apple a monopoly, is Tesla autopilot good or bad etc but persons that disagree with my view points can disagree without becoming toxic. For me toxic comments are comments that are int the first place illogical, use false facts or speculation as truth, use personal attacks or aggressive language, generalize one or a few data points to th…

The word "toxic" has no meaning anymore, because it's all relative to the person using it. For example, in the game Overwatch, "toxic" got mostly used as "this person does not play with the characters currently recognized as the most optimal". Just playing the game differently than the pros/current metagame was literally considered toxic by a non-negligible amount of people. When someone says "ban this person for bei…

You are still using some extreme example and generalizing.

Say the word online, troll it has a well known definition, I don't care if you or that dude there is using it wrong, the definition is clear and the majority of humans are using it right.

Second if a community decides that behavior X is not allowed then that community will ban X and fck your freedom of speech or whatever , on the community forum,sub-reddits, IRC the community rules apply, you don't like it don't join the forum,sub-reddit

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

#223

Post by bootlooped » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

lazyjones wrote: post #64

antihero wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it turns out that yes, voat and gab.ai are both filled with the utter dregs of society. Is this "free speech" positive hangout a wonderful paradise full of intellectuals and idealists? No, just a bunch of racist conspiracy nut trash.

> And it turns out that yes, voat and gab.ai are both filled with the utter dregs of society What does this say about the validity of the questionable study linked here that applauds "deplatforming" and only examines a few short-time consequences? Great success, sending more people from reddit to their own hate platform that will grow and exploit synergies among groups of particularly toxic people.

If you look at the number of upvotes and comments on any given post on voat.co, it's clear that very few people are actually using it. If deplatforming drove >50% of affected users there it would be troubling; my guess is that it's <5% though.

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

#224

Post by simion314 » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

Smithalicious wrote: post #158

simion314 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not true, we disagree here on HN on many topics like software freedom, is Apple a monopoly, is Tesla autopilot good or bad etc but persons that disagree with my view points can disagree without becoming toxic. For me toxic comments are comments that are int the first place illogical, use false facts or speculation as truth, use personal attacks or aggressive language, generalize one or a few data points to th…

Fair enough, the implication doesn't go both ways. My point was that all things considered "toxic" are just things that are not being agreed with. Of course, things can also not be agreed with without being considered "toxic".

>Fair enough, the implication doesn't go both ways. My point was that all things considered "toxic" are just things that are not being agreed with

Can you give an example because you make no sense or you are stating something obvious, yeah communities do not agree with toxic things because they are bad.

The toxic meaning is clear in the context of each community, if you don't agree then don't join, if you want to join follow the rules, if you just want to join and not follow the rules and you want to create harm then you are toxic.

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

#225

Post by 0815test » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 4:40 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #202

9HZZRfNlpR wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fun fact: the word with an added "d" at the end is a very different word that actually means "cheapskate, overly parsimonious". I have a fringe theory that this is what all the music videos actually mean to refer to (it would kinda fit with the whole "bling bling" and "money is everything" theme) and that the whole thing is a really teh'ible misundah'standing which wee all vehwy sohwy about! (I would love for the entire black community to reclaim that word as part of promoting widespread awareness of good personal-finance practices.)

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

#226

Post by satokema » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 4:41 PM UTC

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

in this case, user/advertiser metrics

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

#227

Post by sagichmal » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 4:41 PM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #170

sagichmal wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't care about what murderers or white supremacists think. Their morality is wrong, and they don't deserve a seat at society's table.

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

#228

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 4:42 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#229

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 4:50 PM UTC

lazyjones wrote: post #64

antihero wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it turns out that yes, voat and gab.ai are both filled with the utter dregs of society. Is this "free speech" positive hangout a wonderful paradise full of intellectuals and idealists? No, just a bunch of racist conspiracy nut trash.

> And it turns out that yes, voat and gab.ai are both filled with the utter dregs of society What does this say about the validity of the questionable study linked here that applauds "deplatforming" and only examines a few short-time consequences? Great success, sending more people from reddit to their own hate platform that will grow and exploit synergies among groups of particularly toxic people.

> Great success, sending more people from reddit to their own hate platform that will grow and exploit synergies among groups of particularly toxic people.

Fox News seems like a rather good analogue of this. Despite promulgating information and opinions considered false and unacceptable by many, they are quite successful both financially and at exerting political influence. Shaming and shunning them and their viewers only hardens their viewership's belief in the truth of what they say.

By shunting the "basket of deplorables" off to Voat/Gab, we might be inadvertently creating the next Fox News.

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

#230

Post by satokema » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 4:53 PM UTC

One should ask why the "bad and wrong" arguments are so dangerous that they need suppressing.

If it's so bad and wrong, it shouldn't have a leg to stand on, surely?

There are kernels of truth unaddressed by the champions of so-called-good because they undermine the groupthink. That's the real catalyst for conversion in the rabbit hole funnel. Having a subreddit is just a convenience.