This is slightly off-topic and will probably get buried, but has anyone else seemingly noticed a huge spike in incel-type commentary as of late all over reddit? I feel like I can't go into any serious posts' comment section without getting that vibe anymore. I was wondering if this is related to some of those more infamous subreddits getting banned and "releasing" those types of people to the rest of reddit's site?
Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
251–260 of 413 posts
Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
#252It "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…
Reddit's aim was not to change peoples' minds. They simply don't want to host those kinds of content on their platform and and they did that. Toxic content reduced and so it worked. Period.
On the other hand, having those communities on popular platforms makes them more easily accessible. As the market grows, it makes new audience susceptible to have similar view.
Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 joi…
Reddit is notably not a community. I can accept a community deciding that it doesn't want certain opinions to be expressed because they don't fit the communal culture, but this doesn't apply to Reddit, which is explicitly a platform for people to start their own communities. I think there's some room for common sense as to what communities should be given a platform and which shouldn't, for example I don't tihnk /r/c…
I was referring to sub-reddits and the moderation that happens there where "toxic", trolling , offtopic ares clear terms.
Not the full reddit platform, it is a private thing and a business, if keeping toxic sub-reddits on would make them money and good PR then they would keep them , it was a business decision and if it is legal then it is nothing you can do then move your community elsewhere.
I also don't like when business ban perfectly legal things like adult content but what can you do? Make a law forcing business and private people host things that they don't want, if you had a forum and someone would spam it with disgusting images don't you want the freedom to remove that? Reddit is not a monopoly, we have forums and they even work better for some content type
Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
Likewise murderer or white supermacis can say the same thing, that they don't care what you think, your morality is wrong and you don't deserve a seat at society's table
Yes, and one of us is right, and another one of us is wrong. That's fine.
[deleted]
Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
#255Earlier 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.
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.
You can say everything you need to say about white surpremacists without having to resort to "we're right and they're wrong". I don't see what shrouding your preferred state of affairs in objective language gets, other than the potential for cognitive dissonance.
Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
#256Earlier 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 is very, very easy to just stumble upon stormfrontesque content on reddit. Reddit tries to keep it off the default frontpage and /r/all these days but they're not entirely successful, and it's not unheard of for the comments on a picture of a cute bunny to turn into a conversation about how people of some race are responsible for all of the problems in the world.
Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
#257Earlier 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…
Which is more likely, that you'll be able to convince a true believer to convert, or that a true believer well be able to convince someone on the fence?
Putting racists on open platforms stops the second, and if you're so interested in changing their minds, nothing is stopping you from searching them out to do so.
Daryl Davis went I to people's homes and met them in person to befriend and sometimes "convert" them. It wasn't accidental cross pollination. He explicitly reached out.
Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
The burden of proof is to show that it IS as bad or worse after deplatforming, given the observation that it reduces the problem locally and makes it harder for new people to discover and convert into those communities.
Racist online communities aren't difficult to find. The problems brew on the fringes first. Regardless of how they might see it, I think the close proximity to the rest of the public erodes it's power.
How do you simultaneously believe that close proximity weakens this stuff, but that you can't accidentally stumble onto it? Make the proximity close enough, and it becomes mainstream content, which you appear to view as a bad thing.
Those appear contradictory.
Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
The difference being that fox was never marginalized, it's always been mainstream.
Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
Inasmuch as different parts of society disagree on how to "improve" it, one part does not have the right to censor the other.
Yes, parts of society absolutely have the right to censor other parts of society. Just as we have the right to imprison, or regulate, or chide, or squelch. None of these things are sacred and inviolable lines. All of them are tools, which we have the moral obligation to use, judiciously, to improve the human condition.
Free speech improves the human condition. Therefore, by your own argument, the authorities have the moral obligation to forcibly censor your own anti-free speech comments.