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

291–300 of 413 posts

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

#291

Post by patrickg_zill »

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…

There is however some government action in terms of government ad spending on these platforms, and the many, many billions of dollars in tax incentives/abatements that have been handed over to Google etc.

That may not reach the level of government involvement needed to claim that universal access must be provided; however it should be noted that the government has helped to pick winners and losers in the internet economy.

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

#292

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st »

whenchamenia wrote: post #282
faissaloo wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homeless people are not undeserving of things based o their actions, fascists are.

Nobody deserves to be deprived based on their political beliefs. Only actions. Thoughtcrime is bullshit, and I sure as hell don't see any active facists roaming the streets.

>active facists roaming the streets.

That's certainly happening these days.

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

#293

Post by kadendogthing »

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…

>They just moved to more obscure places, where they can continue and be evem more motivated

Citation needed.

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

#294

Post by golemiprague »

Ancalagon wrote: post #251

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?

There is a huge surge in men in their 20' who don't have sex, it is as simple as that. There are couple of reasons for that but that's the reality and many of them are not happy about it.

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

#295

Post by blueboo »

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…

> where they can continue and be evem more motivated, because now they have been censored.

or demotivated, because they are fewer in number (most stayed on reddit) and have been censured

and the ones who stayed -- now their radicalizing pals are out-of-sight, out-of-mind

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

#297

Post by xmunoz »

whenchamenia wrote: post #282
faissaloo wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homeless people are not undeserving of things based o their actions, fascists are.

Nobody deserves to be deprived based on their political beliefs. Only actions. Thoughtcrime is bullshit, and I sure as hell don't see any active facists roaming the streets.

There were two attacks on perceived minorities in California this week alone. Literal fascists are killing people in our communities right now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/poway-synagogue-shooti... https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/27/sunnyvale-c...

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

#298

Post by marmada »

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…

I feel like these types of "free speech solves hate" arguments should be automatically rejected until the author gives evidence that rational argumentation works. I see this type of comment all the time, but there's never any evidence except for historical examples that aren't directly relevant. It's quite tiresome and inflammatory.

There's proof that Reddit is now a happier place. The commenter must prove, using evidence not fear mongering, that the negative effects of deplatforming outweigh the positives.

I think deplatforming is especially good on Reddit. Take subreddits like The_Donald. People who go there are constantly barged with blatantly false information. If The_Donald was banned they would be forced to integrate with the rest of Reddit (exposing them to more true information) OR a smaller portion of them would go to voat, but that smaller portion couldn't be saved anyway.

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

#299

Post by marmada »

lordlimecat wrote: post #124
clucas wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, Reddit isn't responsible for, and couldn't possibly begin be responsible for, hate in the whole world. They banned it on their site, and it cleaned up their corner of the world, and they're happy that the place they have control over has less hate. That's not bullshit. Bullshit is saying "well, we can't possibly get rid of it, so may as well let it stay where ever it shows up."

Bullshit is saying "We stand for free speech" and then later saying "the best way to deal with toxic and hateful viewpoints is to censor and hide them." Belief in free speech as a principle assumes that good and right arguments will win out every day in an open public forum.

That assumption is false. Things like racism aren't motivated by rational arguments, so they cannot be cured through a rational tool, like free speech.

Racism stems from fear, hate, and deeply embedded cultural tools. You can't "cure" racism through argumentation. Maybe, maybe, you can make people less racist in person -- but on an anonymous forum like Reddit, not a chance.

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

#300

Post by Retra »

pmarreck wrote: post #107
clucas wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, Reddit isn't responsible for, and couldn't possibly begin be responsible for, hate in the whole world. They banned it on their site, and it cleaned up their corner of the world, and they're happy that the place they have control over has less hate. That's not bullshit. Bullshit is saying "well, we can't possibly get rid of it, so may as well let it stay where ever it shows up."

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.

The best way to get rid of bad ideas is to not give a megaphone to the people who want to spread them.

The fundamental fallacy you're making is that you're conflating the act of judgement with the act of sentencing. What a fine world it would be if your justice system were forbidden to sentence people under the expectation that the purpose of a trial were simply to convince the accused to never do it again.

It is irrational to declare that some behavior is 'bad', yet forbid anyone from suffering meaningful consequence for engaging in it.

Post reply on HN